[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: "svn blame" with a specified revision

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: 2003-10-14 01:42:06 CEST

C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> writes:
>>"svn blame FILE"
>> - Shorthand for "svn blame -rHEAD FILE".
> Disagree. This, like other 'svn' commands, should be shorthand for
> either 'svn blame -rWORKING FILE' (BASE + local mods) or 'svn blame
> -rBASE FILE'. I can't decide which, but I'm leaning toward WORKING.
> The problem you constantly run into when presuming that omitting a
> revision specifier means "equate this with HEAD" is when the item no
> longer exists in HEAD. The default behavior should be one which
> is guaranteed to work, methinks.

Good call. +1.

As Justin points out, if it's to be WORKING, then we need a notation for "local" and the notation needs to be distinct from the notation for "unknown (before the limit that you set)".

- Julian

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 14 01:42:25 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.