Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:54:47 +0200: > On 13.06.2013 10:35, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > It seems to me it should ideally print '3' for every line, and the user > > should pass '-r 2:3' if he wants to distinguish "added in r3" from > > "added before r3". It would be easy to preserve the current behaviour, > > though, of printing '-' rather than '2' (where '2' here is the youngest > > change to that line, for lines added before r3). > > It strikes me that what you're really looking for is either >
(I assume you meant M<N throughout your email) > -rN:M -> [N, M-1], > > which would make the two blame variants symmetrical, or > It would make them symmetrical in that they both extend the range one revision in the "towards older" direction. I think that's not the symmetry we need. My kappa/iota example outlines the kind of symmetry I'm expecting. > -rN:M -> [N+1,M] > > as you don't really have to find "the next interesting change" -- you > only have to make sure the first bound is inclusive, as with -c, rather > than exclusive, as with -r. If you want to make the first bound inclusive, you need to extend the range in the opposite direction, into [next-younger-interesting-revision, M]. (And then you run into the problem that in M:N you can give M=0, but there's no equivalent for that in the N:M case.) > That would also imply > > -cN:M -> [N+1,M] > > and I'm not sure we currently do it that way. 'svn blame' does not take the '-c' option, only '-r'.
