On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:16:06 +0200: >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> 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. >> > >> >> Okay, I don't feel strongly about this. My only "argument" was that >> people are not used to thinking about the order of rev args when using >> blame. But that doesn't mean they can't get used to it ... > > Do people use blame -r M:N at all? I would expect that 'svn blame file' > and 'svn blame -r N file' / 'svn blame file@rN' are more popular > invocations.
Good point. Okay, +1 on just letting -r5:4 do the reverse thing without anything more. GUI's can obviously do other things in their dialog windows to make things clear to users, if they want to. But for the commandline I think your proposal is fine. -- Johan
