On Mon, 08 May 2006, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> Daniel Rall writes:
> > On Mon, 08 May 2006, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > > Julian Foad wrote:
> > > > Either of: implement blame of the working version (+1), or reject it
> > > > with an error (+0).
> > >
> > > +1 on immediately, today, returning an SVN_ERR_UNSUPPORTED_FEATURE for blame
> > > of 'WORKING'.
> > Here's a patch for discussion. (I've haven't been able to test this
> > yet, as one can only pass WORKING via the API, which there's currently
> > insufficient scaffolding for in the C test framework. Might be able
> > to hack the svn client to do this test.)
> +1. It looks correct to me.
I was indeed able to test this out pretty easily by hacking the
commandline client's code, and have committed it in r19558. It's also
nominated for backport to 1.4.x.
> > +1 on eventually adding support for this. Exactly how the changes are
> > communicated to the user could use a little discussion. For example,
> > do we say all WORKING changes were made by the user performing the
> > 'blame' operation (which might not be true in the case of a shared
> > WC), or do we use some generic text indicating that the changes are
> > specific to the WC (e.g. "(local)")? What to we use in place of the
> > revision?
> This is already handled by cat. It adds an M to the revision number
> and uses "(local)" for the user name. It uses the current mtime of
> the file.
Sounds like a good approach. I tweaked the log message to refer to
'cat' for a future change in behavior.
Received on Mon May 8 22:10:39 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored