On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> 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
Okay, +1 on just letting -r5:4 do the reverse thing without anything more.
GUI's can obviously do other things in their dialog windows to make
things clear to users, if they want to. But for the commandline I
think your proposal is fine.
Received on 2013-06-14 11:42:41 CEST