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

Re: Auditing Design - v1 (was: Re: [merge-tracking] 'svn blame' auditing)

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-02-27 23:25:31 CET

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Stefan Haller wrote:

> mark benedetto king <mbk@lowlatency.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 06:54:04PM -0800, Daniel Rall wrote:
> >
> > > > 'svn blame':
> > > > Two additional columns for each line, one with the original revision
> > > > number, and one with the original author of that line. Unlike other
> > > > commands, we do not need to worry about multiple source revisions,
> > > > because each line can have at most one author.
> >
> > What should be done if the merge included revisions that were themselves
> > merges? Should those revisions be treated as "original" or is the problem
> > recursive? Should that question be answered on the command-line?
>
> Treating those revisions as "original" doesn't seem very useful to me in
> practice. I'd certainly want to see the "real" original revision in
> blame.

I tend to think that 'svn blame --merge-sensitive' should recurse
until we hit the true original revision.

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Feb 27 23:25:52 2007

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