Arwin Arni wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 15:45:04 +0530:
> 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>.
>
Huh?
Received on 2011-06-28 18:00:56 CEST