Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
When the code has beem moved around. There's a description at
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s03.html which helps explain
it.
Mind you, I think if you're doing this kind of drilling back you're
begging or pain.
Yes I understand the situation where you would have to use p...@rev to get
something at all (because history doesn't lead there). What I don't understand
is when you would ever be wrong if you used that all the time instead of -r rev.
Which leads to the related question as to why that syntax isn't the
default for commands. Is it less efficient than following history backwards?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
