Re: "svn blame" with a specified revision

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