[MERGE] [Bug #133751] Fix traceback thrown by ``bzr log -r 0``

[Kent Gibson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Kent Gibson wrote:
>
>> Aaron Bentley wrote:
>>> Aaron Bentley has voted reject. Status is now: Vetoed Comment:
>>> I think if the user requests revision 0, we should politely
>>> tell them that it doesn't exist.  None means "no value
>>> specified", not "unreasonable value specified", and
>>> NULL_REVISION shouldn't have the same behavior.  "bzr log -r0"
>>> is not the same thing as "bzr log"
>> Hmmm, ok.  That wasn't how I read John's comments in the bug.
>
In case it wasn't already clear to you, this was an explanation of how
I came up with the submitted patch, not a challenge to your statement.
> John says two things: - old versions treated -r 0..10 as r ..10
By old you mean, 0.18 and later, since 0.17 and earlier spat an error
on -r 0.

> - But this meant that old version were buggy-- they treated "log -r
> 0" as "log".
- From his comment I assumed this was an intentional change that had had
unfortunate side effects on the log filtering.

So do we understand where we are coming from yet?
>
> Me now: It's weird to treat -r 0..10 as -r 1..10.  Relatively
> harmless, but probably leads people into bad habits or confusion.
Fair enough.

Me soon:
Will come up with a new patch that behaves as you described.

Cheers,
Kent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHOYSpgoxTFTi1P8QRAnH5AKC/84m99IYbjdCuPE3HUwWj7zJOtwCg79RL
WcG1RgVO12tZsgd2Ye+m2fE=
=1Ecp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----