[MERGE] Add an optional location parameter to the 'revision-history' command.

[Michael Ellerman]

On 5/31/06, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > I was going to do the same for 'ancestry', but there's a TODO in there
> > about using tree.last_revision() instead of branch.last_revision() which
> > got me confused. How would the working tree ancestry differ from the
> > branches?
>
> If you have a checkout (specifically lightweight checkout), it is
> possible for the working tree to be out of date with respect to the
> branch. (It is also possible if you push changes over sftp, since we
> don't update the working tree).
>
> If you want, you could probably leave this as a TODO, though I would
> probably say "use the working tree if you can, else fall back to the
> plain branch."

Gotcha. I wonder if revision-history should do the same thing? Is
there a clean way to do the fall back, other than trying to open the
working tree and catching the exception?

cheers