Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:18:35 +0200: > 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?
And, of course, 'svn merge -c-5 --reverse', which is going to be confusing to someone regardless of whether you define it as -r4:5 or as -r5:4 ...
