Revision spec issues

[John A Meinel]

Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> There are a couple difficulties currently with revision specs; mostly,
> inconsistencies between what's said to work, and what does work.
> 
> 
> 1) 0.7 fixed the issue of ranges with no upper bound (e.g, "5.."), but
>    neither 0.7 not bzr.dev handle ranges with no lower bound ("..5"),
>    which "should" work according to the wiki and comments in the code.
>    I'm not sure it really matters if we don't support it;
>    "1..<whatever>" is virtually as easy to type (as opposed to
>    "<whatever>..-1", which is a little less intuitive), but the docs
>    and the code really should line up either way.

It should work. It just wasn't ever formally specified (by a test), so
it got broken along the way.

> 
> 
> 2) Date specs by name (today, etc) don't act like they're documented
>    to.  Both the docstrings in the code and the wiki [I just changed
>    the latter] say that "date:today..date:tomorrow" should refer to
>    "all revisions today", but trying to actually DO that fails:
> 
>    % bzr log -rdate:today..date:tomorrow
>    bzr: ERROR: Branch BzrBranch(u'/tmp/bzr/dtest/') has no revision
>         date:tomorrow
> 
>    "date:yesterday..date:today", however, DOES appear to work
>    correctly.  I don't have the knowledge of Python to tell whether it
>    works correctly because that's the right way to do it, or whether
>    it just SEEMS to work right, but is actually wrong.  I've updated
>    the wiki so that it gives a command that at least mostly works,
>    instead of one that dies, but somebody who understands this should
>    take a gander at it and see which is right and beat the variations
>    into submission.


Probably just a "I documented this when I originally implemented it, but
it has been (incompletely) updated". When I first implemented date: I
used a slightly esoteric "date:+yesterday..date:-tomorrow" To indicate
sometime before date of yesterday, and sometime before date of tomorrow.
We got rid of the +/- notation, and I'm guessing the documentation just
removed the symbol without realizing that it doesn't work the same way
anymore.

Thanks for the heads up. Can you file a bug on it in Launchpad?
http://launchpad.net/products/bzr/+bugs/

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060212/42469e77/attachment.pgp