[RFC] Trying to get something better that revno:N:branch to deal with remote revs

[Matthieu Moy]

John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:

>> I have one more question or point against URL;spec (I'm not opposed to
>> it, just not 100% convinced yet).
>> 
>> What meaning should be given to
>> 
>> $ bzr diff -r 4 ./branch1;revno:10
>> 
>> 1) it's an error
>
> maybe
>
>> 
>> 2) it's bzr diff ./;revno:4 ./branch1;revno:10
>
> You never specified '.', so this doesn't seem right to me.

Well, ./ is the default in most cases. Indeed, I was incorrectly
assuming that "bzr diff -r 4 ./branch" would diff revision 4 of local
branch with head of ./branch, but you're right. Indeed,

$ bzr diff -r XXX ./branch

does basically the same as

$ cd ./branch; bzr diff -r XXX

>> 3) other ?
>
> At best, it could mean 'bzr diff ./branch1;revno:4', which right now
> means diff the working tree at ./branch1 against revno 4 of the same tree.

That means silently ignoring the ;revno:10 part. I don't like this.

> So we would need a general consensus before I would recommend
> changing things.

For sure.

> One thing I think having revisions specs in URLs is that we need to
> change the command parsing so that you could specify a given argument is
> a URL + revisionspec (potentially).
> Then converting from a path to objects would happen at a higher level,
> making it more convenient for Command classes.

I was thinking of a Branch.open_containing_with_revspec(url+spec) that
would return the branch object and the revision.

-- 
Matthieu