On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 13:47 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:01:11 -0500, "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote:
> > I think we're getting into scratched-record-mode on this.
>
> I apologize if I've come across as beating a dead horse on this. I've
> really tried to only respond where I still confused, or there are
> explicit indications that the reader hasn't understood what I was
> saying, ("I don't understand how you've come to that conclusion",
> etc.). I'll be even more careful about that below, labeling paragraphs
> as "I'm missing something" or "Maybe I wasn't clear".
>
> > G: So use revids everywhere.
> >
> > B: Revnos are handier tools for [situation] and [situation] for
> > [reason] and [reason].
>
> I'm missing something:
>
> I still haven't seen strong examples for this last claim. When are
> they handier? I asked a couple of messages back and two people replied
> that given one revno it's trivial to compute the revno of its
> parent. But that's no win over git's revision specifications,
> (particularly since they provide "parent of" operators).
I would say that: revnos are handier tools than revids...etc
I think that since G: was making a statement about revids, B: was making
an implicit comparison with them.
bzr log -r before:1
being handier than
bzr log -r before:revid:david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-davidc
--
gpg-key: http://www.zettazebra.com/files/key.gpg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part