Arwin Arni wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 15:49:10 +0530:
> On Tuesday 28 June 2011 09:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >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?
> I meant to say in order to fully utilize the existing -r format
> (revsion number, date, keywords like HEAD BASE etc) we can't accept
> something like svn bisect --good 12345 or svn bisect --good HEAD..
> We need to accept svn bisect --good -r <revision>
Why?
(aka: "I understand what your claim is. Could you corroborate it?")
Received on 2011-06-29 14:24:32 CEST