On Nov 15, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:18:38PM -0500, Josh Pieper wrote:
>> When the peg revision functionality agreed upon, we decided to default
>> peg revisions to HEAD for URLs and WORKING for WC paths knowing that
>> it was not exactly the same behavior as used to exist, but that it was
>> much more useful. In fact, the old behavior could be considered a UI
>> bug. At any rate, I don't think you can call this a "silent" change,
>> since it has been discussed to death.
>
> I don't care if it was discussed to death here. It's a silent change
> from a user perspective. There is inadequate documentation of this
> change.
I feel like this is my fault; the 1.1 book (and the 1.1 releasenotes)
really should have a whole section explaining peg-revs. I've been
planning to do it for 2 months, but haven't gotten a round tuit yet.
This whole issue lies in fuzzy territory: was it really a "silent UI
change"? Silent, only because I've not documented it well yet. UI
change? You could argue that we were simply fixing a long-standing
class of bugs (issue 1093), and that the only solution was to "add some
new UI syntaxes", just like we add new APIs. But yeah, I agree that
there's some danger here too. So far, after 7 weeks since 1.1's
release, I've not seen any complaints in IRC or users@ with somebody
saying, "hey, my script suddenly behaves differently." So I'm not too
worried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 19 16:15:50 2004