bzr status

[David Ingamells]

David Cournapeau wrote:
> Of course status should report about the whole repository, I don't think
> anyone has argued for the contrary. 
Good! That explains why I did not understand your message.
Some of the earlier posts seemed to me to be to be talking about this, 
as did your post.
> My remark only concern the reference
> path for status output. More concretely, for the project foo:
>
> foo/subdir1/subdir2 $ bzr st
>
> Gives me the path relative to foo (where .bzr is). So if I want to do
> bzr diff, bzr log, bzr blame, etc... on a given file as outputed from
> bzr st, I have to change the path relatively to cwd.
>
> IOW, bzr st output and bzr blame/log/diff input don't use the same
> reference. It is even difference for bzr st itself:
>
> foo/subdir1/subdir2 $ bzr st
> modified:
>     foo/subdir1/subdir2/bar.txt
>
> foo/subdir1/subdir2 $ bzr st bar.txt
> modified:
>     foo/subdir1/subdir2/bar.txt
>
>   
Which the second part of my message was referring to, so we are arguing 
for the same thing, namely
status should report paths from the 'cwd' and not from the root of the 
branch.

To all posters in this thread, please be careful with terminology: in 
Unix/Linux _absolute_ paths are paths that begin at the root of the file 
system, and have an initial "/". If all paths were reported absolutely, 
there would be no need for "..", "." or "../../.." in the names and your 
'cwd" would have no impact on the names reported by bzr status (except 
of course to give bzr status the context of where to look to examine the 
branch). I'm not particularly arguing for this, but it is an alternative.

David I
>> It would be easier to use conceptually (for me at least) to have bzr
>> support a "bzr status ." 
>>     
>
> It already does :)
>
>   
I did wonder when I typed that.