Daniel Rall writes:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
> > Julian Foad wrote:
> > > Either of: implement blame of the working version (+1), or reject it
> > > with an error (+0).
> >
> > +1 on immediately, today, returning an SVN_ERR_UNSUPPORTED_FEATURE for blame
> > of 'WORKING'.
>
> Here's a patch for discussion. (I've haven't been able to test this
> yet, as one can only pass WORKING via the API, which there's currently
> insufficient scaffolding for in the C test framework. Might be able
> to hack the svn client to do this test.)
+1. It looks correct to me.
> +1 on eventually adding support for this. Exactly how the changes are
> communicated to the user could use a little discussion. For example,
> do we say all WORKING changes were made by the user performing the
> 'blame' operation (which might not be true in the case of a shared
> WC), or do we use some generic text indicating that the changes are
> specific to the WC (e.g. "(local)")? What to we use in place of the
> revision?
This is already handled by cat. It adds an M to the revision number
and uses "(local)" for the user name. It uses the current mtime of the file.
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 8 21:25:04 2006