On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> >> > >> I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded >> a new syntax. > > I realize that this is barely related to the topic, but is there any common > scenario where you wouldn't want to use peg revision syntax? In every > situation I can imagine where -r rev path and p...@rev might differ, the one > I'd want would be p...@rev.
When the code has beem moved around. There's a description at http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s03.html which helps explain it. Mind you, I think if you're doing this kind of drilling back you're begging or pain.
