Re: description of Peg Revision Algorithm is incomplete

Julian Foad wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> [...]
>> Actually, I don't think that peg revisions (i.e. without following the
>> history) make much sense on objects relative to the current directory
>> (unless its URL has not changed since the peg-rev).
>
> That is the point I was trying to make: a peg rev specifier as defined
> in this thread does not make any sense on a local path, and so should
> not be allowed.

I deleted a similar statement from a previous mail after convincing myself
that surely we allowed that syntax for *some* reason before. Alas, I still
can't think of a compelling reason to allow it myself. :-P

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand