Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> There was the "smart" proposal and the "dumb" proposal; the "dumb"
> proprosal was genuinely pretty dumb and should never have received any
> consideration. But I believe there was consensus at that time on the
> "smart" proposal, which was:
>
> Iterative case: svn diff [-r {N|N:M}] TARGET ...
> Comparative case: svn diff TARGET TARGET
>
> In the comparative case, TARGET can be URL@REV as well as
> just URL or WCPATH, of course. To resolve the ambiguous
> case where two targets are specified and no -r option is given:
>
> If both targets are wc paths, assume iterative case.
> Otherwise, assume comparative case.
Ah, yes, it's all coming back to me, now. Thanks.
I'm okay with it. It's one of those cases where inconsistency may
actually be more intuitive (the ambiguity resolution algorithm, I
mean).
I'd like to name this as the solution to issue #1142 (though we won't
be able to get it into this milestone). Since we appear to have
consensed on this solution already, I'll just add it to the issue and
put it in 0.24 or 0.25.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 16 00:20:25 2003