On 08/13/2011 12:31 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > Maybe this is a more convincing argument: > > If the client printed 'Moved from URL@REV' it would be printing nonsense. > It is a nonsense thing to say "I moved the node foo as found in revision 42 > to the local node bar". Revisions are immutable so foo@42 cannot be removed > from revision 42 and added to the working copy under a different name.
yes, it is :) > I don't think command line client should be printing information which > can be easily misunderstood, and misleading. This statement is a universal truth and valid to any side of any argument. The Q is: which confuses more people? In the average user's world, printing "copied from" when there was a known explicit local move is about as misleading as what you described. I very much agree that saying "moved from revision 42" is straight nonsense. Saying "Copied From" and "Moved From" in the same info output, while it may be correct and sensible to us devs, is nevertheless ambiguous. Can you acknowledge that? And then I'll let it go. Because changing it isn't worth the trouble. (But I wasn't gonna take your lecture just like that :P You probably didn't mean it the way it came out on my end, but it came out pretty dry indeed.) ~Neels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
