[responding late in the game since I'm getting mails up to 3 days old]
> From: William Uther [mailto:willu.mailingLists@cse.unsw.edu.au]
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 2:34 AM
> I'm a user who has been on the list a while, and thought about this a
> bit, and I think I'd rather have diff honour ancestry -- I view diff as
> a dry-run of merge and if merge is going to delete and re-add lots of
> lines, then I want to know that.
If it honours ancestry you'll only see the changes made between the
new file and the original file, regardless of it being renamed.
I think that's ok though. I too feel that diff should resemble
dry-run of merge.
> That still leaves the problem of what happens when you diff unrelated
> files. Well, if the files are related, then use ancestry, otherwise
> print a "warning: unrelated files" and ignore ancestry. But what I
> really want is a way to edit ancestry easily!
Ook! That's certainly post 1.0.
> If I use diff, and get lots of warnings about unrelated files, then I'd
> like to be able to tell svn, "look, I know the person who added this
> file didn't follow your rules, but just treat these two files as
> related please." (My very vague knowledge of the svn schema suggests
> something about adding a line to a copies table to turn the original
> add into an add with history? I'm not sure how the copy table and node
> id's relate here.)
I'm not so sure how this will work. It possibly means the rewriting of
nodeids in history and that's not something I particularly fancy. We'll
have to see when there are more resources to invest in attacking things
like this.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Aug 23 14:04:51 2003