On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 07:52:00AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote: > Thanks for bringing up this explanation.
Indeed! I had totally forgotten about this conversion from years ago. > So the second inconsistency is > because '-c X' actually defines operative range X-1:X and the source of the > copy is X-2 in this case. > > Indeed, a lot of subtleties and inconsistencies that appear to be bugs. > > Is there ever going to be SVN 2.0 that can finally break these bug-for-bug > compatibility promises? Is there a list of things that are going to be > changed in 2.0? I wouldn't object to changing 'svn diff' to match the behaviour of 'svnlook diff' in this particular case. The inconsistency does not help anyone, and our compatibilty guarantees aren't *that* solid. We've certainly changed some output of our tooling when it helped our users, even where doing so hurt scripts. I think my concerns were more about the effort involved, rather than compatibility. The process of adding --show-copies-as-adds was surprisingly difficult. I wouldn't want to go back to that code myself. I would review another brave soul's patches, though. The effort involved is easy to underestimate, unfortunately.