Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Doug Robinson
<doug.robinson_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Daniel:
>
> I think that simply enabling M<N (where it is now an error) will create the
> situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect
> and tries to interpret it based on their desire - leading to confusion. I
> believe M<N should still be an error. A new option (--reverse ?) should be
> required to make it clear that the user wants the reverse blame walk.

I agree. I think it would be better to make the reverseness explicit
in the UI. When running blame, users are not used to think about the
order of their -r arguments.

But then I'm wondering: should 'svn blame --reverse -r1:5' give an
error, just like 'svn blame -r5:1' does? Or should it silently swap
the revnum args? Hmmm

(BTW, I think the reverse (kidney) blame will always remain a rarely
used usecase. It's really kind of advanced, just thinking about it
...)

--
Johan