Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> wrote on 08/04/2005 01:29:30 PM:
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 18:22 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Though it would be more difficult to implement, I think the proposal
to accept
> > a revision keyword which means "the other revision minus one" is a
better
> > strategy because it can be unambiguous, uniform across different
commands, and
> > extensible in a backward-compatible way.
>
> Yeah, I'm coming to a similar conclusion. Some way of writing -r N-1:N
> which applies to all commands seems more appropriate than special-casing
> "svn merge -rN" simply because that currently has no meaning.
>
> (I'm a little surprised that "svn merge -rN URL" doesn't do the same
> thing as "svn diff -rN URL", which is N:HEAD. That's probably not a
> terribly common desire, but it would be consistent.)
>
> -r PRIOR:N would work, or we could opt for something more magic, like
> -r :N or -c N or some such. Nothing really jumps out at me as superior.
I think that svn could use two new revision keywords.
1) N-1, where N is just the other revision argument (left or right).
Personally, I think that PREV should be changed to have this meaning.
2) Last change, let's call this PRIOR. Meaning an item could be changed
in revision 14, 25, and 30. The value of PREV:30 would be 29:30. The
value of PRIOR:30 would be 25:30. Likewise, a value of 30:PRIOR would be
30:25 etc...
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 4 19:36:11 2005