post 0.8 development

[Jan Hudec]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 14:46:59 -0700, John A Meinel wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> >On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 12:44:09 -0700, John A Meinel wrote:
> >>Matthieu Moy wrote:
> >>>* there's also my old "how to get the diff between two remote 
> >>>revisions", but nobody seems interested, so I'll have to do it myself 
> >>>when I have time ;-).
> >>There is a bug report for "bzr diff -r 1..2 http://path/to/branch" not 
> >>working. And I do think we are interested in fixing that one. (I am, at 
> >>least). I looked into it, but the cmd_diff code is a little tricky, 
> >>because it does a lot of different things based on what the arguments 
> >>are. (If it is 2 branches it does something different than 2 files, 
> >>different from no files, etc).
> >
> >What is 'bzr diff -r 1..2 http://path/to/branch supposed to do?
> >- Diff revision 1 of http://path/to/branch against revision 2 thereof
> 
> This is what it already does, but only if path/to/branch is local. 
> (Because it requires a working tree).
> 
> The change is only to allow diff to work when there is no Working Tree, 
> but two revisions are given.

Well, now when branch and working tree can exist without each other,
path/to/branch does not imply working tree even if it's local...

> >- Diff revision 1 of . against revision 2 of http://path/to/branch
> >- Diff revision 1 of http://path/to/branch against revision 2 of .
> >Guess reading --help would tell me, but it takes a hack lot thinking each
> >time I need to use it. The ;revision notation would really help here:
> >  bzr diff .;revno=1 http://path/to/branch;revno=2
> >can't be confused.
> >Note that it is longer, so it should not replace -r completely. Though one
> >could write:
> >  bzr diff http://path/to/branch;revno=1 http://path/to/branch;revno=2
> >with a bit of shell magic as:
> >  bzr diff http://path/to/branch;revno={1,2}
> 
> Except the shell would interpret that as:
> bzr diff http://path/to/branch
> revno=1 revno=2

Yeah, sure, forgot to insert the backslashes.

> Which would do something *very* different. (One of the reasons we were 
> discussing using something other than ';' as the parameter specifier. 
> ',' is the alternative, but it might be too common in a filename)

Yes, a different character would certainly be nice. We could claim it's
a query and use ? (and rely on the fact most shells by default take globs
that don't match anything literally). Or we could follow the clearcase
precedent and use @@.

> >>I don't think we've settled down on our URL scheme to support
> >>http://path/to/branch;revision=foo
> >>But I think if someone actually implemented a parser for that, we would 
> >>consider merging it. (The one who actually implements it will get a lot 
> >>of say as to how the syntax will actually work).

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060508/09242b9e/attachment.pgp