Right. The fact is, the --revision switch is (in effect) a simple SELECT
statement, which is currently limited to rev numbers and dates (plus a
few odds and ends like HEAD). I can see several very valuable extensions
as ways to choose revisions, including labels.
This is a great mail-list, but I get worried when I see so many posts
containing something like "Look in the log for the correct revision
using svn log ...foobar, then use that revision number." Isn't this kind
of mechanical work the bit the computer is supposed to do?
Frankly, in an ideal world I should be able to use a wide range of
filters to choose a revision or revision range, and then directly apply
that revision range to any SVN command via --revision syntax.
--Tim
David Gómez wrote:
>Hi Tim ;),
>
>On May 03 at 02:24:49, Tim Hill wrote:
>
>
>>I confess not to understand the "anti-label" arguments...
>>
>>
>
>I don't understand them either. We know the good things about "svn copy", it's
>a O(1) operation, it doesn't takes a lot of disk space, etc. Nobody says "svn
>copy" is bad. I think it's a good system to create branches, and for create
>tags for whoever wants to have that directory structure.
>
>But it'd be very useful to provide the additional possibility to add
>mnemonic names to revisions an be able to reference them with the -r
>parameters. As somebody said, i don't know if it was you, it's exactly
>what it's been doing now with dates and keywords (BASE, HEAD, etc.), so
>why not add a method to create your own tags?
>
>regards,
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 4 03:46:08 2005