On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 07:28:36AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >>>I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded
> >>>a new syntax.
> >>I realize that this is barely related to the topic, but is there any common
> >>scenario where you wouldn't want to use peg revision syntax? In every
> >>situation I can imagine where -r rev path and path_at_rev might differ, the one
> >>I'd want would be path_at_rev.
> >
> >When the code has beem moved around. There's a description at
> >http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s03.html which helps explain
> >it.
> >
> >Mind you, I think if you're doing this kind of drilling back you're
> >begging or pain.
>
> Yes I understand the situation where you would have to use path_at_rev
> to get something at all (because history doesn't lead there). What
> I don't understand is when you would ever be wrong if you used that
> all the time instead of -r rev. Which leads to the related
> question as to why that syntax isn't the default for commands. Is
> it less efficient than following history backwards?
There is no difference.
In the "-r rev" syntax, the rev is interpreted as a peg revision.
See http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c?revision=961970&view=markup
lines 3026 to 3092, inside function svn_wc_parse_externals_description3().
Revisions parsed from either syntax set the same variable (item->peg_revision).
The new syntax is simply more convenient because the order of URL and path
is consistent with svn checkout.
Stefan
Received on 2010-07-13 15:36:47 CEST