On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 11:34, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 10:55, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > There are two approaches here:
> >
> > 1. as ghudson suggests, run RA->get_logs() on (5, foo.c), and verify
> > that the (3, foo.c) is actually the same object.
> >
> > 2. throw a specific error ("future searching not yet implemented"),
> > so that callers can catch the error and make a helpful suggestion ("try
> > running 'svn cat -rHEAD' on the URL instead of the working file.")
>
> Have you ever cd'd to your Subversion working directory and run "svn log
> -r HEAD"? Do you really want to break that?
I think 'svn log' is a bad example here, because that's the one
subcommand that *does* follow history already. It never occurred to me
that it would need to be retrofitted with the new history-finding
routine. Are you suggesting that?
And how far does your argument go? Are you suggesting that until we
change the fs schema to make future-searching possible, we shouldn't add
the past-searching feature to any subcommand? Are bunches of behaviors
going to break that I'm not considering?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 1 20:27:32 2004