Re: Revision 2 [was Re: [PATCH] Fix for Issue #1093 (pre-release)]

Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:

> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
>
> > Nah, that would just complicate things further. My suggestions:
> >
> > 1. Make the --revision (-r) option *always* talk about the operative
> > revision range. That means no more 'svn foo -rM:N path1 path2' as
> > an alias for 'svn foo path1@M path2@N' (thankfully... what a
> > stupid overloading of a concept that was...)
> >
> > 2. Make the '@' syntax always talk about the "peg" revision.
> >
> > 3. The peg revision must always be greater than (younger than) the
> > youngest revision in the operative range.
>
> Why rule 3?

We're chatting in IRC about this right now. Originally, I added rule
3 because if N < PEG < M, the history line for the path could split
into multiple lines between PEG and M.

But I think we could not be so fussy, and just let the code try to
find the path in M and hope for the best.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 29 21:03:39 2003