Re: lost revision?

[Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>]

Benjamin Pflugmann <be...@pflugmann.de> writes:
> Thank you for answering. That's how I understood it already. Sorry
> that I was not more explicit about that.
> 
> The original answer why the command (svn diff -rM:N) may give no
> output was a technical description how it currently works. And I
> wanted to know, why it works as it does.
> 
> What I meant was: Why does it *require* a path? Or in other words:
> Why, when no path is given, does it implicitly take "." as path
> instead of working on the repository per se? Is there some reason I do
> not see (perhaps consistency with other commands), or is this simply
> what seemed to make sense when it was first implemented? Or something
> else?

I think that might be a better behavior than implicit `.', yes.

See http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=960 for why
it's hard right now :-).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: lost revision?

[Brian Denny <br...@briandenny.net>]

> > implicit '.' makes sense to me, by analogy with 'svn up'.
> 
> Sure, but update needs to choose a local path to work at all.  Log
> does not.  They're about different things.
> 
> I take it that the default log behavior has never confused you, then?

honestly i'm not sure i've ever *done* an 'svn log'.  
(till just now...  woo-hoo!)

what about 'svn diff'?  

if you specify -r xxx:yyy, then you can use just a repository path;
otherwise, you need a local working directory.  should 'svn diff' default 
to the whole repository in the case where two revnums are given, but to 
the current working directory otherwise?

it seems more consistent and therefore less confusing (to me) to have diff 
always operate on the current wd unless otherwise specified.  and, then, 
it makes sense (to me) for log to do the same.


my other concern would be, if i am working with many projects in a
single repository, it is unlikely (or at least not the most common case)
that i am really going to want to look at all of them in a single
diff/log.

-brian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: lost revision?

[Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>]

Brian Denny <br...@briandenny.net> writes:
> > I think that might be a better behavior than implicit `.', yes.
> 
> why?  are there other svn commands which default to the repository if 
> no arguments are given?

Because we keep hearing that it confuses people (probably because they
expect log to be about the repository, by default, not about a local
path that was never explicitly mentioned).  And to tell the truth,
it's bitten me a couple of times, even.

There aren't many other commands for which "defaulting to the
repository" would make sense, so searching for surface consistency
here doesn't help, I think.

> implicit '.' makes sense to me, by analogy with 'svn up'.

Sure, but update needs to choose a local path to work at all.  Log
does not.  They're about different things.

I take it that the default log behavior has never confused you, then?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: lost revision?

[Brian Denny <br...@briandenny.net>]

 
> > What I meant was: Why does it *require* a path? Or in other words:
> > Why, when no path is given, does it implicitly take "." as path
> > instead of working on the repository per se? Is there some reason I do
> > not see (perhaps consistency with other commands), or is this simply
> > what seemed to make sense when it was first implemented? Or something
> > else?
> 
> I think that might be a better behavior than implicit `.', yes.

why?  are there other svn commands which default to the repository if 
no arguments are given?

implicit '.' makes sense to me, by analogy with 'svn up'.


-brian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org