On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 11:27, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> > >Does someone other than 'svnlook' use this particular limited -r
> > >syntax?
> >
> > "svn up" comes to mind.
>
> Er, the whole point was that 'svnlook' does not accept the -rX:Y
> syntax that other commands accept.
"svn up -r X:Y" isn't accepted either.
> > Really, that's just a special case of our -r
> > X[:Y] syntax, so you should be able to use the common parser in
> > svnlook and simply bail out if the second rev is given.
>
> Yes, the common parser bails correctly, and the strategy you describe
> above would work. But it's a much more involved change -- we'd have
> to start using svn_opt_revision_t, which means all of a sudden we're
> supporting -r{DATE} syntax in svnlook (!), which means now we're
> adding a new feature, when all I meant to do was fix a bug.
>
> I didn't really want to go down that road.
Supporting -r{DATE} in svnlook sounds like a fine idea. You weren't
really fixing a bug so much as tightening up a parser, so your change
isn't really appropriate for back-porting anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 18 19:36:08 2004