new status output

[Jan Hudec]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 17:55:39 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:14, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 19/10/05, Jan Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz> wrote:
> > > My problem with this is, that IMHO the single letters are faster to read
> > > and easier to spot anomalies. Ie. it's quite fast to scan a list of 'M's
> > > for 'C', while it's slower to scan a list of 'modified's for
> > > 'conflict's.
> >
> > But for myself, it seems even easier to have them grouped by state and
> > see whether the "conflicts:" header is present at all.  Do you
> > disagree?
> 
> The only problem with that is if you have a large number of files in one 
> state, the header scrolls of the screen and disappears.
> 
> I'd like "bzr status --modified" (and so on), so rather than having to "scan" 
> for "M" or "modified" or whatever, I just run "bzr st --modified" and if I 
> get any output at all I know there's something changed.

Um, seems I was not clear enough. No, that's what I don't want. I want
to see everything. The point is, that I want to quickly sort out what
cases appear and not miss anything. And it's faster to read one letter,
than a word. Also --modified does not apply to the other cases showing
status like merge.

For this purpose, the grouping suggestion would probably work good. But
full words would be less readable, at least for me.

The grouping seems to have a disadvantage with merge, that it does not
work as progress indicator. CVS/Subversion/Arch... print it as they
patch the files, but with grouping that's not possible.

--
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051019/9e7d7731/attachment.pgp