On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Daniel Rall wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
...
> > > Excellent. What should the behaviour of 'svn log foo@PEG' be, if no
> > > revision range is provided? Should it still be -rHEAD:1, as it is now
> > > (I think), or should it be -rPEG:1, which might be more in-line with
> > > the other commands that operate on peg-revs.
> > >
> > > See http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-01/0352.shtml for an equivalent
> > > patch I proposed for 'svn blame', though note here that we have no
> > > backward-compatibility concerns.
> >
> > As Peter Samuelson, I prefer PEG to HEAD on the grounds of both
> > consistency and usability. I'll come up with a XFail regression test
> > for 'svn log' to get us started.
>
> Here's a patch adding that function to the command-line client (I
> assume we want it there, rather than in the library itself?), and some
> related tests. If there are no comments, I'll commit it RSN.
Committed in r18255.
--
Daniel Rall
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Fri Jan 27 00:11:32 2006