On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 12:18 +0200, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > Sussman asked me to post the current work i have on streamy blame (done
> > by blaming files from youngest revision to oldest, instead of the other
> > way around) since it was hoping to be ready for 1.2.
> >
> I think this improvement is worthwhile, but I thought it was mostly about
> streaminess, not speed. sussman gave another impression in his mail.
>
Blaming files with large numbers of revisions is a common use case for
repositories with long histories.
Waiting *minutes* until the server says something to you is not that
acceptable.
> >
> > Otherwise, i plan on testing and committing the server side and api
> > changes(IE everything but the call to reverse_blame and the associate
> > reverse blame functions on the *client* side), because it adds an
> > argument to svn_ra_get_file_revs, which is new API for 1.2, and thus, if
> > we don't do it now, we're going to have to add *another* function in
> > 1.3.
> >
> I don't see a problem with revising another API. I don't like pushing in
> an API change this late in the 1.2 cycle, though. And since this
> functionality won't be used before 1.3 anyway (it isn't for a patch
> release), I don't see the point in doing this.
>
> > Unless someone has a better idea, or believes we should put it all off
> > *anyway*,etc.
> >
> >
> I think the idea is fine and I'm willing to work with you with it for 1.3.
> But I htink we should punt for 1.2. (Blaming bing ChangeLog files isn't
> that a common use case, is it?:-)
This affects blaming a *lot* of files, not just ChangeLogs.
I'll respond to the rest of your comments later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 29 15:40:45 2005