Re: [PATCH] Issue #1093: make diff follow history

Josh Pieper <jjp@pobox.com> writes:
> Well, due to the resounding lack of response, I am assuming that there
> is at least some partial agreement that this syntax is workable and
> have started a patch to implement it. Since the patch does change the
> syntax and isn't easily broken up, I'm posting a work-in-progress
> here.

Ben Collins-Sussman and I spent some time this morning going over the
both the old and new syntax, and we're +1 on the new. This proposal
solves the peg problem.

But, does this mean we'd lose the old syntaxes? The old syntaxes are:

   1. diff [-r N[:M]] [--old OLD-TGT] [--new NEW-TGT] [PATH...]
   2. diff -r N:M URL
   3. diff [-r N[:M]] URL1[@N] URL2[@M]

The new ones you're proposing are

   1. diff [-r N[:M]] [TARGET[@REV]...]
   2. diff --old=OLD-TGT[@OLDREV] --new=NEW-TGT[@NEWREV] [PATH...]
   3. diff OLD-URL[@OLDREV] NEW-URL[@NEWREV]

I'm just thinking about UI compatability and release scheduling. Can
we release a diff syntax change in 1.1? That seems a bit much, unless
the change *only* adds new syntaxes, doesn't take away any of the
existing ones.

> The patch covers nearly all of the new syntax except the case of
> comparing a repository URL to a working copy. That code used the
> update editor to generate a diff and I am not sure how best to rework
> it to handle pegged diffs. I am open to suggestions on how to proceed
> on that front.

You probably mean the "update driver", right? The update editor is
not used for diff, but one of two diff editors is.

(My apologies for not being able to review the patch itself, just got
meetings and some other stuff going on here lately.)

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 11 20:16:08 2004