Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:53:19 -0600 From: Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Request for comments - svnup in base ? Message-ID: <54C10EDF.6020106@my.hennepintech.edu> In-Reply-To: <20150123001645.Y22179@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <mailman.57.1421668801.42632.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> <20150123001645.Y22179@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54C10EDF.6020106>