This sounds reasonable to me; I would suggest to add (keep) the dot slash
./ at the start of the output of the latter.
That's a good idea to make the absolute (from repo root) and relative (from
some subdir) visually distinct -- have the latter start with ./ and the
former not.
Regards,
On Thursday 23 June 2005 10:12, Thomas Zander wrote:
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 20:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I vote +1 on pathnames being reported relative to the current pruning
directory.
So darcs whatsnew will show you all files new in the repo, with
paths starting at the repo's
Hi all,
Many of the darcs commands ignore the current working directory
which is confusing since traditionally shell commands operate
relative to the current working dir.
- E.g., darcs whatsnew always reports filenames relative to
the dir containing the _darcs dir rather than relative
I suggest that darcs whatsnew should behave like darcs
whatsnew .,
the same for other relevant commands.
Actually; I find this feature the best feature of Darcs and using
the '.'
for the one or two times I actually want only the current dir makes
sense
I second!
However, the filenames
[Mark Lentczner [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:22:21 -0700]:
I suggest that darcs whatsnew should behave like darcs whatsnew
.,
the same for other relevant commands.
Actually; I find this feature the best feature of Darcs and using
Not the best, but I'd hate to see it go!
I think there are two issues under discussion: should pathnames be reported
relative to the root or to the current pruning directory, and should the
current pruning directory default to the root (as in the current darcs
record)
or to the current working directory (as in darcs record .).
I
