Re: Auditing Design - v1 (was: Re: [merge-tracking] 'svn blame' auditing)
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Stefan Haller wrote:
> mark benedetto king <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
I tend to think that 'svn blame --merge-sensitive' should recurse
until we hit the true original revision.
Received on Tue Feb 27 23:25:52 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev