"ancestor" and "branch" are undocumented in "bzr help diff"

[Brad Bollenbach]

I heard through the grapevine about the "ancestor" and "branch" options to bzr diff. These options are not documented in "bzr help diff", but should be.

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

Confirmed.

[Aaron Bentley (abentley)]

I think this bug is stale. "ancestor" and "branch" are both documented in "bzr help revisionspec"

[Wouter van Heyst (larstiq)]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:26:38PM -0000, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> I think this bug is stale. "ancestor" and "branch" are both documented
> in "bzr help revisionspec"

Agreed. To make it more discoverable, how about the attached bundle?

Wouter van Heyst

[Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)]

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 23:20 +0100, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:26:38PM -0000, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > I think this bug is stale. "ancestor" and "branch" are both documented
> > in "bzr help revisionspec"
> Agreed. To make it more discoverable, how about the attached bundle?
ENOBUNDLE :-)

Cheers,

Jelmer
--
Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/

[Wouter van Heyst (larstiq)]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:20:05PM +0100, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:26:38PM -0000, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > I think this bug is stale. "ancestor" and "branch" are both documented
> > in "bzr help revisionspec"
>
> Agreed. To make it more discoverable, how about the attached bundle?

And this time with it attached.

Wouter van Heyst

[John A Meinel (jameinel)]

Wouter's updated patch will be in 0.14, though 'bzr help revisionspec' was introduced in 0.13.

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

On 19 Dec 2006, Wouter van Heyst <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:20:05PM +0100, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:26:38PM -0000, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > > I think this bug is stale. "ancestor" and "branch" are both documented
> > > in "bzr help revisionspec"
> >
> > Agreed. To make it more discoverable, how about the attached bundle?
>
> And this time with it attached.

That looks good. Could we add a see_also as a structured field for
commands and help topics, so that they can be represented consistently,
and perhaps turned into hyperlinks in html etc? We could also add
entries to it automatically for the command's options if they have
additional help, as for -r pointing to revisionsper.

--
Martin

[Wouter van Heyst (larstiq)]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:28:58PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2006, Wouter van Heyst <email address hidden> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:20:05PM +0100, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:26:38PM -0000, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > > > I think this bug is stale. "ancestor" and "branch" are both documented
> > > > in "bzr help revisionspec"
> > >
> > > Agreed. To make it more discoverable, how about the attached bundle?
> >
> > And this time with it attached.
>
> That looks good. Could we add a see_also as a structured field for
> commands and help topics, so that they can be represented consistently,
> and perhaps turned into hyperlinks in html etc? We could also add
> entries to it automatically for the command's options if they have
> additional help, as for -r pointing to revisionsper.

I like the idea of turning them into hyperlinks in html, on the way to a
true reference manual. Not sure how to present all that information in
the commandline client, Matthew might have something to say about that.

Wouter van Heyst

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

On 20 Dec 2006, Wouter van Heyst <email address hidden> wrote:
> I like the idea of turning them into hyperlinks in html, on the way to a
> true reference manual. Not sure how to present all that information in
> the commandline client, Matthew might have something to say about that.

Well I thought just turn them into

  see also: revisionspec, transport,

etc, where each is a word that can be given to help.

--
Martin