On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 09:58:53AM +0200, Marcel van der Boom wrote: > >That just means we should have a cleaner way to support this use case, > >though. To start with, what's wrong with 'diff -r <revision>'? Would > >it be useful to have 'status -r <revision>'? > diff -r <revision>: > nothing, i use it. In practice i think i just got into the habit of > just doing mtn diff since the revision file had already the base rev ;-) > > status -r <revision>: > thinking about it, this is propably the crux. this would be *very, > very* useful.
Ah-hah. > (although i saw that the output of this changed in .29 > to a more human oriented format?) Yes. Is that good or bad? :-) -- Nathaniel -- When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden's green and gold, Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould; And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it Art?" -- The Conundrum of the Workshops, Rudyard Kipling _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
