From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 22 14:53:38 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D19551F for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0147.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.111.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.protection.outlook.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF7E8ED4 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:53:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.21] (73.5.142.244) by BY1PR0301MB0838.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.193.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.59.20; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:53:27 +0000 Message-ID: <54C10EDF.6020106@my.hennepintech.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:53:19 -0600 From: Andrew Berg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: Request for comments - svnup in base ? References: <20150123001645.Y22179@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20150123001645.Y22179@sola.nimnet.asn.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [73.5.142.244] X-ClientProxiedBy: BL2PR05CA0019.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.226.19) To BY1PR0301MB0838.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.193.144) Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=aberg010@my.HennepinTech.edu; X-DmarcAction-Test: None X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005004);SRVR:BY1PR0301MB0838; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:BY1PR0301MB0838; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0464DBBBC4 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(6049001)(51704005)(24454002)(199003)(189002)(15975445007)(77096005)(92566002)(68736005)(77156002)(122386002)(62966003)(23676002)(110136001)(65956001)(66066001)(101416001)(65806001)(59896002)(46102003)(75432002)(97736003)(450100001)(40100003)(80316001)(19580395003)(106356001)(50466002)(65816999)(50986999)(83506001)(54356999)(87266999)(76176999)(107886001)(2351001)(105586002)(89122001)(64126003)(64706001)(33656002)(47776003)(88552001)(2950100001)(87976001)(86362001)(42186005)(89472002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0301MB0838; H:[10.0.0.21]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:nov; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: my.HennepinTech.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0301MB0838; X-OriginatorOrg: my.hennepintech.edu X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2015 14:53:27.6413 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0301MB0838 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:53:38 -0000 On 2015.01.22 08:25, Ian Smith wrote: > svn(1) is available as a port for 9.3, but not svnlite(1) .. and I think > neither deserve their (1) until there's a real 'how to use it' manual. Blame Apache for the way they distribute SVN documentation. You have the website: https://subversion.apache.org/docs/ and the SVN book. Unfortunately, this is quite incompatible with the way FreeBSD generally distributes documentation, so we would need someone to make man pages out of all that, which is not trivial. BTW, man.cgi doesn't have a man page for svnlite in 10.0 because 10.0 didn't ship with the man page. > I wouldn't recommend using svnup for ports either, but haven't tried it. Please elaborate. If getting the ports tree with svnup is an issue, then it definitely doesn't belong in base. > > On a side note, backticks are bad and you shouldn't use them. :P > > Because? Because they are more difficult to read (very easy to confuse with ' at first glance) and shell code needs all the readability it can get. > Yeah; I wish I wan't so crap at documentation, too verbose by half .. > now if we could convince Warren to check it out .. :) One of these days, I will learn how to work with man pages and such.