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

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 13:22 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 08:15:04AM +1000 I heard the voice of
> Ian Clatworthy, and lo! it spake thus:
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> You'd get resistance from me.
> 
> Really, this isn't a weird inconsistency.  It's ENTIRELY consistent
> with our model.  We don't have series of changes, we have series of
> states.
At the risk of complicating the UI, I wonder if it makes sense to make
-c do the other (change-oriented) and -r the current
(revision/state-oriented) ?

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090201/990c5ea5/attachment.pgp