Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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 I would say, silently swap and blame because to me that seems more sensible... -- prabhu -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
