On Sat 2003-05-17 at 23:58:39 +0200, Josef Wolf wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:27:15PM +0200, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
>
> > That's funny, because exactly the fact that I already followed that
> > practice with CVS is the reason why I also want these per-item logs.
> > (the CVS logs are more similar to per-items logs than per-commit logs
> > when CVS is used this way).
>
> Might it be that your mind is very much influenced by CVS?
Yes, of course. It's the revision control system I mainly used and use.
I am not sure what you implying by that. I already said that I prefer
changesets and use CVS this way. But I prefer to be able to query the
logs on a per-file basis, if I am interested in the change history of
a file. And with CVS I can easily have that, but not have the also
much-wanted per-revision comments.
> > If I want the changes on some file (e.g. "svn log wc/dir/foo.cc"), I
> > am absolutely not interested in what else changed (if I was, I would
> > effectively call "svn log wc").
>
> "svn log wc/dir/foo.cc" already gives you only the log-entries of the
> revisions on which wc/dir/foo.cc was changed. I can't see your point.
But it clutters the output with all the information for the other
files, that I am often enough not interested in. Okay, an example.
Try something like:
$ svn log -r5554 http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/diff.c
Really try it now! (I am not quoting it due to its length). If I
wanted that kind of output, I would do something like
$ svn log -r5554 http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/
Yes, I know, that will give different output. The output I would want
the output to be like:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rev 5554: kfogel | 2003-04-04 23:22:22 +0200 (Fri, 04 Apr 2003) | 153 lines
First part of issue #1100 ("imports need to do checksumming").
Move the result checksum from apply_textdelta to close_file:
* subversion/libsvn_wc/diff.c
(apply_textdelta): Lose the result_checksum argument.
(close_file): Take text_checksum argument, ignore it.
[23 other files are part of this changeset]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now do that for a range of revisions and I hope you see my point.
> > Yes, the question is not to cripple the current Subversion log, but to
> > be able to ask for the logs for a single file only, in addition.
>
> This functionality is already existant.
How? I don't see it. Which command produces an output similar to the
one quoted above. For me per-file comments means that the output will
*not* be cluttered by comments for other files.
But as I said, since I don't see a convenient user interface to create
such comments, I am not seriously asking for the feature. I just
wanted to make clear, that there are good reasons for per-file
comments, even if one is using changesets based commits.
Benjamin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 18 01:08:07 2003