Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 17:08 -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
>>
>>>-c {DATE} would mean the same thing as -r X-1:X where X is what {DATE}
>>>resolves to.
>>>
>>>Admittedly, "show me or merge in the change I made most recently as of
>>>foo time" is probably an edge case, but it does have a straightforward
>>>meaning in my mind.
>>
>>I can accept the full revision format if that's what we want. It just
>>seemed weird to talk about "change 2005-06-19", when 2005-06-19 is not a
>>revision number.
>
> Yet, 2005-06-19 does map to a specific revision, and grabbing the delta
> between that revision and the previous revision would certainly parallel the
> behavior of passing revnums to -c. Even with the obvious parallel, is
> anyone likely to actually use the date variation of this feature? Perhaps...
"-c {DATE}" can certainly have a well defined meaning as stated above.
However, that does not mean it is inherently a useful concept. I don't think
we have yet demonstrated a good reason to accept it. Let us reserve the
possibility of supporting it in the future if and when such a need is
demonstrated. Likewise the other forms in which a revision can be specified:
"-c BASE", "-c HEAD", etc.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 26 23:25:58 2005