[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Enhancing svn blame (Was: Case study: Mono switches to Subversion)

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2004-11-21 01:07:58 CET

On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 17:37, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> Should I interprete you as saying that svndiff gives us information such
> as "this range deleted, this range added, ...". I am surely missing
> something obvious, but I don't understand how. svndiff says things like
> "take this from the source, then this from another place in the source,
> then this new data, etc." I don't see how to translate this into what we
> want. Please open my eyes.

I think you're right. Our binary deltas get random access to the source
and target within a window, which enables them to be smaller
(particularly if the source is the empty stream) but renders them
useless for blame, as far as I know.

> Else, I think Karl's proposal is good as far as it goes.

I don't understand how Karl's proposal can work, but perhaps others can.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 21 01:09:12 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.