bzr status

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:29:46PM +0900 I heard the voice of
David Cournapeau, and lo! it spake thus:
> 
> OTOH, the whole point of a relative status is that generally, when
> you are inside a tree, you don't care so much about files "above"
> you. If there are a lot of .., then I would say I am not at the
> 'right' place.

I don't have a set of files or a set of directories, I have one
project.  And there are lots of directories and files; making a
conceptual change means adding this file here, and changing this file
beside it, plus some work over on the other end of the tree there.
Then there are the 3 or 4 different terminals I've got at various
places across the project making changes...   there is no "right
place" per se.  I sure don't miss the CVS days of having to cd
../../../../../.. before I commit to make sure I don't miss half my
changes, and then walk back down to a file for the next set.


> If both ways can be done, it would be the best, I guess.

Oh, absolutely.  I don't contest that there are good reasons people
would want the relatives.  I just want to be sure it's kept in mind
that there are good reasons to like the other way too.  I hardly ever
use 'stat' output as a source for C&P, and use it obsessively and
continually to keep my brain informed as to what's happened, and make
sure it matches what I expect.  Adding faults in that critical path
would be a hinderance, as much as the absolute paths are a hinderance
to C&P'ing.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.