I agree .. *getting* the rev# was not the issue, though. It was what
I do with it when I've got it:
Workflow 1 (today):
(1) enter: svn info <some-url>
(2) manually scan the output for the rev#, call it X
(3) enter: svn diff foo.c -r X:HEAD
Workflow 2 (with proposed feature):
(1) enter: svn diff foo.c -r <some-url>:HEAD
In workflow (2) I'm assuming --revision has a hypothetical new
feature to accept an URL and get the rev# implied by that URL.
Questions:
1. Which workflow is shorter?
2. Which workflow is less prone to typos and errors?
3. Which workflow is easier to script/automate?
My point about labels hasn't been that they are *better* then tags;
they are not. My point is that using tags as a replacement for a
label feature is inadequate because, as currently implemented, there
is a hole in the subversion command set; the rev# *implied* by the
tag (or any other URL) is not available as an input to subversion
commands except via script hacks/magic.
(begin rant...)
I don't think this is a theoretical argument: the svn-book and
discussions groups are packed full of hints like "scan the log for
the rev# and then enter the command foobar -r rev#" etc. But manually
scanning logs, or tags etc, and then manually entering rev#s seems to
me a workflow flaw; isn't that kind of grunge work exactly what a
computer is supposed to be for.
(end rant! hehe)
--Tim
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Nikki Locke wrote:
> Tim Hill wrote:
>> Stuff like back-port and integration operations. You often end up
>> needing to merge stuff where one of the rev numbers is the rev# of a
>> "well-known" revision in the repo. The "official" way to track such
>> well-known revisions is tags. OK, that's fine.
>>
>> The problem arises when I come to type the command: I need to enter
>> the rev# of the tag into a --revision switch. I can only do this two
>> ways: manually (use an svn command to get the rev# from the tag, then
>> type it), or via a bunch of shell magic (which isn't portable).
>> What's really needed here is an extension to the --revision syntax to
>> allow me to say, in effect, "the rev# implied by this URL". This
>> would give me a robust and portable way to inject the needed
>> information during the merge.
>
> Why do you need to enter the rev# number of the tag? A tag has only
> one set
> of files in it (you never commit changes to a tag), so the tag url
> is all
> you need to identify the revision of any file in the tag.
>
>
> --
> Nikki Locke, Trumphurst Ltd. PC & Unix consultancy & programming
> http://www.trumphurst.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 15 22:11:58 2006