"Bieber, Ron" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> One of the prerequisites of converting our source repository to subversion
> upon the 1.0 release will be that it runs with the CruiseControl automated
> build application. I figured that this CC functionality (along with any
> related ant tasks) might be a way that I could contribute to the project.
> One of the things that cruisecontrol does is a CVS log by date (-d >
> 2002-08-09). It seems as if subversion doesn't support this functionality
> yet (and at all in mod_dav_svn).
I'm glad you asked; this one appears to have fallen through the
The date functionality is actually working for ra_local (the short
option is "-D", long opt is "--date"). But it doesn't work over
ra_dav yet; the function svn_ra_dav__get_dated_revision() simply needs
to be filled in, and mod_dav_svn tweaked to handle the request,
However, there is another outstanding issue with dates, see this
comment from subversion/clients/cmdline/main.c:parse_date():
/* ### todo: some standard date formats contain colons.
Eventually, we should probably allow those, and use some
other syntax for expressing ranges. But for now, I'm just
going to bail if see a non-separator colon, to get this up
and running. -kff */
The reason we're using ":" as the separator, even though many date
formats use colons internally, is to match the way the revision (-r)
option works, as in
$ svn log -r953:961
Here are some possible solutions to this problem:
* Allow the repeated option model, as CVS does with -r. So both
'svn log -r X -r Y' and 'svn log -D X -D Y' would work, and -r
would continue to support the colon syntax as well. I kind of
like this, because it makes it easy to *mix* revision and date
options, as in 'svn log -D X -r Y'.
* Use a different separator for date ranges. But which one? And
it would be annoying if dates worked differently than revisions,
so if we came up with a different separator, we should probably
use it (or at least allow it) for -r as well. I don't like this
as much as the first solution.
* Some other idea?
> Are there plans to do this before the 1.0 release? If so, is the '>'
> operator going to be supported in the -D option?
Oh, it will be supported, yes.
I don't think we want to emulate CVS's '>' operator, though. The same
functionality can be achieved by using the special revisions 1 and
"HEAD", which avoids the inconvenience of quoting '>' for the shell.
> PS. BTW, it was a brilliant decision to provide an option to dump the log
> in XML. This will simplify cruisecontrol's module for log parsing
> immensely since we can use an XML transform to convert the log to the
> cruisecontrol modificationset XML.
Cool! Thank Nuutti Kotivuori for that patch :-).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Sep 10 17:02:07 2002