Prabhu wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 14:33:57 +0530: > On 06/14/2013 02:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400: > >>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. > >Sorry, disagree. > > > >diff -r 1:5 != diff -r 5:1 > >log -r 1:5 != log -r 5:1 > >merge -r 4:5 != merge -r 5:4 > > > >With all that in mind, I still think that making 'blame -r 5:4' and > >'blame -r 4:5' do different things is the correct course of action. > > > Yeah, perhaps 'blame -r 5:4' and 'blame -r4:5 --reverse' should do > the same ?
If you do that, why not allow 'svn merge -c 5 --reverse', 'svn diff -c 5 --reverse', etc as well? Does "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." not apply here?
