Arwin Arni wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 15:45:04 +0530: > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 03:36 PM, Noorul Islam K M wrote: > >Stefan Sperling<s...@elego.de> writes: > > > >>On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:12:22PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote: > >> > >>>On Tuesday 28 June 2011 03:01 PM, Noorul Islam K M wrote: > >>>>>+svn bisect start [-rN[:M]] > >>>>>+ > >>>>When we discussed you had a concern that above syntax is different from > >>>>the normal svn sub command syntax. Is this finalized? > >>>> > >>>I wouldn't say it's finalized.. I simply wrote down a spec as a rough > >>>draft. > >>>I'm sure the community will have some ideas about this. (Like implementing > >>>a sub-subcommand interface of some sort.) > >>I'd say just have a set of long options that are mutually exclusive, > >>one for each "subcommand". > >> > >>svn bisect --start > >>svn bisect --good > >>etc. > >> > >>This will be easiest to do with the current argument parsing code, and > >>also means people can type things in any order they like (--good -r42, > >>or -r42 --good). > >Do we really need to use -r to mention revision? > > > >How about --good<rev> --bad<rev> ? > > > >Is this complicated with the existing parser? > > > >Thanks and Regards > >Noorul > > Yeah, the current system will not work well with --good <rev>. >
Huh?
