Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Wilson, Ronald <rwils...@harris.com>wrote: > > > I like DRH's idea but I agree with others that a --comment-file|-M > > feature is needed for integration applications. However, I think > > --comment-file could be less verbose and -M is begging for caps-lock > > confusion. I suggest --infile|-i COMMENT-FILE-NAME. > > > > > i apologize to all - i didn't mean to open up a can of worms. i'll wait on > DRH's vote/veto, and commit (or not). If i do, i'll change it to --infile/-i > unless there are strong objections. For those of you who want it now, the > diff is in one of the previous posts. >
I personally would be confused looking at just an option list: fossil commit [-m|--message commit-message] [-i|--infile filename] [...] [file] Infile what? I wouldn't worry about --comment-file, it may seem a bit verbose but who's going to use that directly? tools for clarity, but for users, they would use -M (or whatever it winds up being). Actually, thinking about it, I'd keep both -M and --commit-file. If they mess up and type fossil commit -M "Commit Message" they will get an error: File 'Commit Message' could not be opened. Now, look at: fossil commit -m|--message commit-message] [-M|--message-file filename] [...] [file] It makes sense with no further help information. Jeremy _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
