Prabhu wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 14:33:57 +0530:
> On 06/14/2013 02:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
> >>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 ?
If you do that, why not allow 'svn merge -c 5 --reverse', 'svn diff -c 5
--reverse', etc as well?
Does "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
not apply here?
Received on 2013-06-14 11:19:13 CEST