On Jan 5, 2005, at 2:34 PM, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
>> Well, you've just presented one side of the debate that's been going
>> on forever on this list. The other side of the debate is:
>>
>> "If no target is given, then all svn subcommands default to operating
>> on '.' at its BASE revision." It's a consistency argument.
>
> Actually, as far as I know, no one is seriously making the consistency
> argument. People are making *other* arguments why we should keep it
> the way it is, for correctness reasons (see maxb's post, for example).
>
I'm not sure why maxb's argument is such a big deal. We already have a
strategy for the scenario he describes -- we use it already in all of
our history-tracing peg-rev stuff in svn 1.1.
For example, if I run 'svn cat -r 50 foo.c@HEAD', we're already
checking that foo.c in HEAD is the same object as foo.c in r50. If
not, we throw an error. I don't see why 'svn log' couldn't do the same
sanity check.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 5 22:41:54 2005