On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:55, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 23:06 +0200, neels wrote: >... >> The problem is that an added node returning SVN_INVALID_REVNUM for >> _revision_base would look like it was _revision_unspecified. Instead, >> svn_client__get_revision_number() asked for an added node's _base >> should probably rather throw an error. > > Yes, that might be better, as it seems to be useful to keep the "INVALID > means HEAD" semantic.
Well... is that _base in terms of the cmdline semantic? What is that exactly? In terms of the BASE tree, an added node is not present there, so "give me the BASE revision for ADDED-FILE" is non-sensical and an error is appropriate. Cheers, -g
