Re: RFC: Untangling the peg revision knot (was: A preliminary study of non-contiguous transformations in the Hilbert space of Alexandrian solutions)

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:49 +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> The proposals I'm making come from some years of observing otherwise
>> quite brilliant programmers breaking their heads against SVN and peg
>> revisions. They're not necessarily a personal preference. This is not
>> about my opinion vs. yours, it's about things I've observed vs. the
>> current status quo.
>
> Having read the whole conversation, I have the following observations:
>
> * The usability issue seems to be especially relevant to legacy users
> who are used to saying "svn cmd -r REV URL" when they want (in the
> current usage model) "svn cmd URL_at_REV". I sympathize, but if we change
> the default now, we'll just be creating pain for the people who used svn
> between peg rev introduction and now.

I think this is a key point: to spell it out differently, "people
should usually be using @REV to specify revisions, and only using -r
REV in special cases". I think most people (myself included) think
about it the other way around, but in our current implementation this
is generally the way to go.

--dave

-- 
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/