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 ...
Implemented in r1493027. No API changes are involved --- this simply makes 'blame -r 5:4' do something instead of raising an error immediately --- so I wonder if we should backport it. I'll go ahead and put it in STATUS towards 1.8.1, if people prefer a backport not to happen they can go ahead and cast -0 votes and continue discussion here.
