David Glasser wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Therefore I'd propose just adding [@PEGREV] support to the target URL in all
>> commands that are to support this feature:
>>
>> svn pdel URL[@PEGREV]
>> svn pset URL[@PEGREV]
>> svn pedit URL[@PEGREV]
>> svn copy SRC[@PEGREV]... DSTURL[@PEGREV]
>> ...
>>
>> Notice that "pedit" reads and writes a single object, and the notion of both
>> reading from "URL_at_PEG" and writing a new revision based on the same "URL_at_PEG"
>> makes total sense.
>>
>> I'm still willing to hear any counter-proposals. The main ones I can think of are:
>>
>> [--base-rev=BASEREV] URL[@PEGREV]
>> (as I sketched above, where BASEREV and PEGREV are usually the same, and
>> BASEREV should not be specified without PEGREV because it would be ambiguous)
>>
>> [--base-rev=BASEREV] URL
>> (where BASEREV defaults to HEAD and is used both as the Base Revision and
>> as the Peg Revision for URL, instead of "@" syntax)
>>
>> (And "--base-rev" would probably need a better name.)
>>
>> Can anyone see a strong reason for or against any of these?
>
> I think your proposal is good, but for the specific case of "propset"
> I think the pegrev should be *required*.
Why, specifically?
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-28 18:18:50 CET