Joel Reed wrote: > (%:~/tmp/root) monotone --db=../mt.db --depth=1 ls known . > file > > (%:~/tmp/root) monotone --db=../mt.db --depth=2 ls known . > a/file > file > > (%:~/tmp/root) monotone --db=../mt.db --depth=3 ls known . > a/b/file > a/file > file
I'm not sure if ls known is considered a working copy command but you probably don't need the --db setting after the first time. > This gives me what I need. When no --depth is provided "." works as > before. Giving the whole subtree from that point. > > A few questions: > > 1) functionality look ok? looks ok to me, and yeah, it's certainly a nice small patch, good work! > 2) --depth as param name ok? not sure. I wonder if simply --local or --nonrecursive would be better so that --depth can always mean ancestry depth. no major objection to --depth though. also, I wonder whether --depth=0 means current dir and --depth=1 means one level deeper? that would have been what I expect, but I don't know what find's --depth semantics are off the top of my head. > 3) patch look ok (-testcase & Changelog!) personally I'd prefer 'if (depth != -1)' over 'if (-1 != depth)'. > 4) I want to add this to "list" obviously, but any other subcommands > you'd nominate for working with this option? (must be something > that uses restriction code!) my vote would be for all restrictable commands to take the option. so status, diff, commit, revert, ls unknown/ignored/missing and any others. it appears that all you need to do is enable the option for them so it seems easy enough to add. Cheers, Derek _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
