On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, 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 ...
> Implemented in r1493027. No API changes are involved --- this simply
> makes 'blame -r 5:4' do something instead of raising an error
> immediately --- so I wonder if we should backport it.
> I'll go ahead and put it in STATUS towards 1.8.1, if people prefer a
> backport not to happen they can go ahead and cast -0 votes and continue
> discussion here.
There are still two problems with the implementation you committed in r1493027:
With 'svn blame M:N' where M>N
1) It's using the N as peg revision, while it should use M (but you're
already working on that).
2) If N is before the item existed, I get:
svn: E195012: Unable to find repository location for
'svn://localhost/path/to/file.txt' in revision 1
It would be nice if you could just blame up to the oldest revision
close to 'end' where the item still existed.
Received on 2013-06-14 16:51:23 CEST