On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Doug Robinson <doug.robin...@wandisco.com> wrote: > Daniel: > > I think that simply enabling M<N (where it is now an error) will create the > situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect > and tries to interpret it based on their desire - leading to confusion. I > believe M<N should still be an error. A new option (--reverse ?) should be > required to make it clear that the user wants the reverse blame walk.
I agree. I think it would be better to make the reverseness explicit in the UI. When running blame, users are not used to think about the order of their -r arguments. But then I'm wondering: should 'svn blame --reverse -r1:5' give an error, just like 'svn blame -r5:1' does? Or should it silently swap the revnum args? Hmmm (BTW, I think the reverse (kidney) blame will always remain a rarely used usecase. It's really kind of advanced, just thinking about it ...) -- Johan
