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

[Martin Pool]

On 12/09/05, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto at cante.net> wrote:

> 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 you've added but not yet committed then 'bzr status' will list
them.  If you have committed and not changed them, 'bzr status --all'
will tell you that.  This is just the same as svn.

> 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.

We can have both names.

OK, so perhaps rather than separate commands

  bzr ls --added
  bzr ls --removed
  bzr ls --missing
  bzr ls --ignored

etc

And these are quite nice for scripts that might want to do 

  for i in $(bzr ls --modified)

-- 
Martin