Julian Foad wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > [...] >> Actually, I don't think that peg revisions (i.e. without following the >> history) make much sense on objects relative to the current directory >> (unless its URL has not changed since the peg-rev). > > That is the point I was trying to make: a peg rev specifier as defined > in this thread does not make any sense on a local path, and so should > not be allowed.
I deleted a similar statement from a previous mail after convincing myself that surely we allowed that syntax for *some* reason before. Alas, I still can't think of a compelling reason to allow it myself. :-P -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
