FEATURE REQ: group common commands under 'ls' instead of separate commands

Jari Aalto jari.aalto at cante.net
Mon Sep 12 07:17:15 BST 2005

Martin Pool <martinpool at gmail.com> writes:
| That is correct.  status shows a bit more information about unknown
| files, can optionally can tell you about unknown/ignored/unchanged,
| and probably in the future about merges...
| The value of the original proposal about removing those commands is,
| to me, mostly that it tucks advanced commands away where new users
| don't need to see them so much.

I thought it more like from the first time user. I had no prior
experience with distributed version control tools:

  ... Hm, I know Unix and ls(1) / or DOS and dir. I'd like to know
  how I can list information on files with this tool? CVS used
  "status", but it doesn't display anything here. But I just added
  2 files with "add" ...

If there would have been

   bzr list [options]

it would be logical to look under that command for all other possible
commands that produced "lists of files" and their attributes from the
software's point of view. It would also be nice to look at the
"complete picture", just like CVS/SVN does when you try to understand
what files have chnaged, added, removed, unversioned etc.

    revno: 2
    ? unknown.txt
    A added.txt
    M modified.txt
    G merGed            (subversion uses "G")
    <if it is possible to indicate Moved, Renamed, list those too>

Now the separate commands scattered inside the manual were not easy to
find or understand. Especially when the terminology is different from
CVS/SVN. E.g. what's inventory? (I was used to term "repository").

While someone voted "list", I'd still favor "ls", because it would be
more familiar to people coming from other version control tools (Unix
background & SVN). It's also fast to type and needs no alias.



More information about the bazaar mailing list