bzr status order

Kent Gibson warthog618 at
Sun Mar 11 03:34:44 GMT 2007

Hash: SHA1

Martin Pool wrote:
> On 10/03/07, Nicholas Allen <nick.allen at> wrote:
>> The advantage is that removed and unknown are listed last and together
>> so that if a file has been moved by an external tool (e.g. Eclipse)
>> you
>> have the list of files that bzr thinks is removed and unknown so that
>> you can copy and paste them easily into "bzr mv" commands to tell bzr
>> that they were moved.
>> I find I do this quite often and the current order has the removed
>> files
>> first so they are as far away from the unknowns as possible. If you
>> have
>> a few modified or added files then you have to scroll up and down
>> in the
>> terminal to do this. Listing them last would most likely make this not
>> necessary and would certainly minimize the scrolling as much as
>> possible
>> instead of maximizing it...
> I see what you mean.  Actually Robert has spoken of changing to
> ordering them by filename, so that we can output all the changed files
> together as we scan each directory.
I'd like to add my vote for ordering by full filename.
It makes it obvious where a file is going to be in the status based on
the one thing you do know for sure - the filename.
It also tends to solve Nicholas' problem because of locality.  The
most common case is to rename a file within one directory, and such
changes will tend to be adjacent.  Moving a file from one side of the
tree to the other would still present a problem - but it is much less

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the bazaar mailing list