> >
> > Have I forgotten any arguments against making 'svn log' default to
> > HEAD:0 instead of BASE:0? Are there compatibility objections? (I
> > would think not, but UI changes are always a judgement call.)
> >
> > Would anyone object if we changed to HEAD:0 and made everyone's lives
> > easier? :-)
>
> Yes, *big* -1 on just changing the default revision specifier to HEAD:0.
>
> Suppose that you are working in a directory mydir, at revision 30, on
> trunk.
>
> At revision 20, mydir was branched.
>
> At revision 40, trunk mydir was deleted, and replaced with branch mydir.
>
> You run svn log. If the default was HEAD:0, you will see the revisions on
> the branch, not on the trunk, for the range r21:39. This is far worse
> confusion than not showing recent commits.
>
>
>
> (Note that the ideal would be to do a diff of HEAD:0 pegged at BASE, but
> we
> cannot trace history forward until we improve the schema in 2.0)
>
> An acceptable alternative would be to define a new revision specifier:
>
> HEAD-IF-RELATED-TO-BASE-ELSE-BASE
>
> Note that I am still -0 on this alternative. (My opinion has changed since
> I
> responded on users@)
>
> In my opinion, papering over a particularly common case of the
> consequences
> of mixed revision working copies only serves to make the topic more
> mysterious. I don't think we would be doing users any real favours by
> allowing them to remain ignorant of mixed revisions for longer.
+1
Erik.
--
+++ Sparen Sie mit GMX DSL +++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
AKTION für Wechsler: DSL-Tarife ab 3,99 EUR/Monat + Startguthaben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 4 13:09:24 2005