Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> Stefan Küng writes:
> > I'd expect the blame result to contain the locally modified lines
> > (either with an empty author or maybe '(local)'), but actually it
> > ignores the local modifications completely. It's as if it blames not
> > against the working copy but the working BASE.
>
> Without actually digging up the code, I'm pretty confident this is a correct
> analyses.
>
> > So I think this is either not intended and might be a bug, or the
> > documentation for svn_client_blame3() should mention that
> > svn_opt_revision_working blames against the BASE.
>
> I'd say the latter. Does including the local mods give you anything?
Eww, no, don't let "_working" mean "_base": that's both silently doing the
wrong thing, and getting in the way of us implementing the correct behaviour later.
Yes, including the local mods gives us something useful. Often, I'm working on
a file and want to see the "blame" info for the portion I'm working on; at
present, I have to get a "blame" of the base version and then manually find the
corresponding portion of it, whereas with this implemented I would be able to
list the blame info alongside my working file and the lines would automatically
match up.
> OTOH, implementing this extra step shouldn't be too hard I think, so if we want
> this is shouldn't be a problem. (The cmdline client would still default
> to BASE like for cat and ls.)
>
> Care to provide a patch for either of the above? :_)
Either of: implement blame of the working version (+1), or reject it with an
error (+0).
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 6 15:43:56 2006