On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 07:28:36AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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?
There is no difference. In the "-r rev" syntax, the rev is interpreted as a peg revision. See http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c?revision=961970&view=markup lines 3026 to 3092, inside function svn_wc_parse_externals_description3(). Revisions parsed from either syntax set the same variable (item->peg_revision). The new syntax is simply more convenient because the order of URL and path is consistent with svn checkout. Stefan
