On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> 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.
>
Okay, I don't feel strongly about this. My only "argument" was that
people are not used to thinking about the order of rev args when using
blame. But that doesn't mean they can't get used to it ...
--
Johan
Received on 2013-06-14 11:17:00 CEST