Blair Zajac wrote:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>> Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> writes:
>>> Looking through the that allowed one to protect a @ in the path or
>>> URL, do you recall why the code results in a different revision type
>>> for
>>>
>>> foo@ [base or head depending upon path or URL]
>>>
>>> versus
>>>
>>> foo [always unspecified]
>>
>> No, I don't remember any particular reason. That is, I can understand
>> why, *if* one is going to make foo@ have an explicit revision at all,
>> that it should be BASE for a local path and HEAD for a url. But I
>> don't understand why an explicit revision is necessary in the first
>> place -- which I gather is the question you're asking :-).
>>
>> Not sure what I was thinking. If the tests pass with unspecified
>> revision, then +1 on your change.
>
> The test suite passes completely with the change, so I'll make the commit.
Committed in r27268.
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 18 03:24:11 2007