Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases

Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>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

I would say, silently swap and blame because to me that seems more sensible...

--
prabhu
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.