Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:18:35 +0200:
> 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:
> > >>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 ?
>
> If you do that, why not allow 'svn merge -c 5 --reverse', 'svn diff -c 5
> --reverse', etc as well?
And, of course, 'svn merge -c-5 --reverse', which is going to be
confusing to someone regardless of whether you define it as -r4:5 or
as -r5:4 ...
Received on 2013-06-14 11:34:26 CEST