On 07/08/2010 09:32 AM, Igor Sereda wrote: >> I like the idea of this change, but I wonder if it can be made without >> introducing a new command-line option. Your "expectations" as listed above >> certainly make sense. That is, until you actually read the built-in >> documentation found in the program's usage message. :-) > > I see what you mean. Some thoughts: > > 1. I think "--drop-empty-revs" could have been something like > "--filter-revisions" instead, which would mean, keep revision if and > only if at least one node passes include/exclude filter. In that case, > empty revisions could be filtered by "include --filter-revisions /".
Heheh. "Could have been" is a luxury we can always entertain but rarely do anything about. A new option for the behavior you propose could be as simple as --drop-all-empty-revs. > 3. While indeed help message for --drop-empty-revs matches the > behavior, the *comment* in the current code does not: > > /* Revision is written out in the following cases: > 1. No --drop-empty-revs has been supplied. > 2. --drop-empty-revs has been supplied, > but revision has not all nodes dropped > 3. Revision had no nodes to begin with. > */ > > Obviously, the guy who wrote the comment expected the same behavior as > I did, but the resulting code was a bit different. :) Yeah, that may be true. But as you well know, our users will be banking on the user-visible documentation and current behavior more so than our code comments. :-) -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
