Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases

On 06/14/2013 02:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
>> 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.
> Sorry, disagree.
>
> diff -r 1:5 != diff -r 5:1
> log -r 1:5 != log -r 5:1
> merge -r 4:5 != merge -r 5:4
>
> With all that in mind, I still think that making 'blame -r 5:4' and
> 'blame -r 4:5' do different things is the correct course of action.

Yeah, perhaps 'blame -r 5:4' and 'blame -r4:5 --reverse' should do the
same ?

--
Prabhu