plans for 0.0.6 release

[David Clymer]

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:39 -0500, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> 
> While I'm being opinionated...
> 
> - Why have multiple syntaxes for specifying revision ranges?  KISS,
>    please!  For users, developers, and documentation writers.
> 
> - I think the "to" syntax is horrid -- ambiguous and thus error-prone both
>    to implement and use, and inconsistent with every other command line
>    option in the universe.  "4 to 5" might look nice and Python-ish, but
>    Python-style syntax doesn't mix well with shell syntax.
> 
> - I think using '-' as a range operator is bad.  '-' is already used
>    to introduce options (ie. -r), and also in some revision names, so why
>    overload it with another meaning?  It just makes command lines harder to
>    parse (for humans and machines).  I mentally parse "-r4-5" as "-r4 -5".
> 
> - I quite like ':' as a range operator, it works fine in Subversion.  But
>    if ':' has another use in revision names, then avoiding overloading
>    it is a good idea.
> 
> - This leaves '..' which seems best:  it's intuitive, easy to read, easy
>    to implement and doesn't have any prior meaning, AFAIK.  And I don't
>    recall anyone else complaining about it.
> 

I'm with Nick on this one. These points mirror my thoughts almost
exactly. I dont love '..', but it seems to be the only one without a
bunch of semantic baggage.

-davidc

-- 
gpg-key: http://www.zettazebra.com/files/key.gpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050601/e15f1ba2/attachment.pgp