Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:54:47 +0200:
> On 13.06.2013 10:35, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > It seems to me it should ideally print '3' for every line, and the user
> > should pass '-r 2:3' if he wants to distinguish "added in r3" from
> > "added before r3". It would be easy to preserve the current behaviour,
> > though, of printing '-' rather than '2' (where '2' here is the youngest
> > change to that line, for lines added before r3).
>
> It strikes me that what you're really looking for is either
>
(I assume you meant M<N throughout your email)
> -rN:M -> [N, M-1],
>
> which would make the two blame variants symmetrical, or
>
It would make them symmetrical in that they both extend the range one
revision in the "towards older" direction. I think that's not the
symmetry we need. My kappa/iota example outlines the kind of symmetry
I'm expecting.
> -rN:M -> [N+1,M]
>
> as you don't really have to find "the next interesting change" -- you
> only have to make sure the first bound is inclusive, as with -c, rather
> than exclusive, as with -r.
If you want to make the first bound inclusive, you need to extend the
range in the opposite direction, into [next-younger-interesting-revision, M].
(And then you run into the problem that in M:N you can give M=0, but
there's no equivalent for that in the N:M case.)
> That would also imply
>
> -cN:M -> [N+1,M]
>
> and I'm not sure we currently do it that way.
'svn blame' does not take the '-c' option, only '-r'.
Received on 2013-06-13 11:06:51 CEST