On Tuesday 28 June 2011 03:36 PM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> Stefan Sperling<stsp_at_elego.de> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:12:22PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 28 June 2011 03:01 PM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
>>>>> +svn bisect start [-rN[:M]]
>>>>> +
>>>> When we discussed you had a concern that above syntax is different from
>>>> the normal svn sub command syntax. Is this finalized?
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't say it's finalized.. I simply wrote down a spec as a rough draft.
>>> I'm sure the community will have some ideas about this. (Like implementing
>>> a sub-subcommand interface of some sort.)
>> I'd say just have a set of long options that are mutually exclusive,
>> one for each "subcommand".
>>
>> svn bisect --start
>> svn bisect --good
>> etc.
>>
>> This will be easiest to do with the current argument parsing code, and
>> also means people can type things in any order they like (--good -r42,
>> or -r42 --good).
> Do we really need to use -r to mention revision?
>
> How about --good<rev> --bad<rev> ?
>
> Is this complicated with the existing parser?
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Noorul
Yeah, the current system will not work well with --good <rev>.
We need to say -r<rev>
Received on 2011-06-28 12:15:47 CEST