Should log/missing -rX..Y be changed to be exclusive of X?

[Ian Clatworthy]

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Ian Clatworthy wrote:
>> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>> Ian Clatworthy wrote:

>> Updated patch attached. Is this acceptable now?

> Ultimately I feel like making "bzr log -r X..Y" be exclusive the way
> "bzr diff -r X..Y" is, would be a better solution, and doesn't require
> "with-merges".

I've always got the impression that log (and now missing) treating
the range as inclusive was a very deliberate choice. I wonder what
cheers and/or resistance we'd receive if they were changed?

> BB:approve

Thanks.

Ian C.