[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Simply allowing both -r and -D is intuitive, but it does cause
> problems for diff. I'm throughly undecided about what the best
> approach is.
One option to specify one revision (-r<branch>:<date>) seems cleaner
than two (-r<branch> -D<date>) in all cases, especially where more
than one option may be specified, as in cvs log and cvs diff. The
choice of ':' was unfortunate, though, because it conflicts with the
RCS-style revision range specification, as in 'cvs log
-r<rev1>:<rev2>'. The '@' character, as in <branch>@<date>, would
have been a nice choice. Come to think of it, since '@' isn't legal
in revision numbers, tags, or dates (I think), maybe support for this
syntax could be added (everywhere: for diff -r, update -r, update -j,
get -r, ...) without breaking anything.
Anybody see problems with this?
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
