[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: directory addition

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: directory addition
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:09:30 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:40:58AM -0400, Larry Jones wrote:
> Eric Siegerman writes:
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:29:26PM +0200, Matthias Kranz wrote:
> > > Usage: cvs update [-APdflRp] [-k kopt] [-r rev|-D date] [-j rev]
> > >     [-I ign] [-W spec] [files...]
> > >     -d  Build directories, like checkout does.
> > 
> > Which is pretty unclear.  You have to already know what it means
> > to understand it.  How about this, which is an abbreviated version
> > of what's in the manual:
> >       -d      Create directories that are missing from working directory.
> How about reading the manual to learn what the commands and options do
> and just using the Usage messages to refresh your memory.

I'm all for it!

If my memory needed refreshing, however, the current description
wouldn't do it.  For someone who kind of remembers that you don't
get new directories by default, I'm far from sure that "Build
directories, like checkout does" would leap out at them and say
"type me!".  "Like checkout does"?  Come on.  Checkout is for
when you have nothing and want to create a new sandbox.  Making
update behave "like checkout" sounds pretty scary -- "What, is it
going to make another sandbox inside my sandbox?  That's not what
I want!"

Sure, you and I, knowing full well what -d does and why it does
it (and knowing that update and checkout are mostly the same code
under the hood), can look at that message and understand it.  But
then, you and I don't ever need to look up -d, because we know
full well yada yada.

*Every* other one of the little capsule descriptions from "cvs
update -H" is clear.  This one, while technically correct, is
singularly unhelpful.  What's the objection to improving it?


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
        - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]