Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:16:06 +0200:
> 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 ...
Do people use blame -r M:N at all? I would expect that 'svn blame file'
and 'svn blame -r N file' / 'svn blame file_at_rN' are more popular
invocations.
Received on 2013-06-14 11:37:12 CEST