On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded a new syntax.
I realize that this is barely related to the topic, but is there any common scenario where you wouldn't want to use peg revision syntax? In every situation I can imagine where -r rev path and p...@rev might differ, the one I'd want would be p...@rev.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com
