On 13 Aug 2002, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> > But there is little that can be done that isn't going to be very fragile.
> > The reality is that we need not be perfect in our annotate output.
>
> Whoa. Wait a second, here :-).
>
> There is no reason our annotate output can't be perfect like CVS's.
CVS's isn't perfect.
It can't be.
> All the information is there. We shouldn't settle for anything less
> than perfect correctness.
Then you won't be doing it like CVS.
>
> We've been spending a lot of effort here trying to to get "svn blame"
> data cheaply from our svndiff delta format. If we can do it that way,
> then great. But if we can't, the answer isn't to settle for
> inaccuracy -- it's to implement blame in some other way.
>
> If we must resort to manual diffing and counting lines, then so be it.
> Below is a loose description of such a system. I'm not saying it has
> to be this way (haven't been closely following the svndiff-centric
> discussion, just enough to see that it's non-trivial).
>
> Doing Blame the Brute Force Way:
> ================================
>
> There is a new table, `blame', mapping NodeChangeIDs to lists of the
> form "((RANGE1 REV1) (RANGE2 REV2) ...)".
Whoah, whoah, we don't need a new table to do this.
We have all the info already.
--Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 13 19:09:36 2002