Re: Auditing Design - v1

Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> On 23/02/2007 0.32, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
...
>> 'svn log':
>> The original log message, in the current format, with the addition of a
>> list of revisions that have been merged into the target. The
>> '--verbose' flag would output the log information for the merged
>> revisions as well.
>> (Question: What is the best way to visually represent all the data
>> being returned by 'svn log --merge-sensitive'?)
>
> I know Daniel proposed the output of svnmerge.py, but I think it's
> better to be more radical here. For instance, this is output of "svn
> log" in the 1.4.x branch today:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r23493 | malcolm | 2007-02-24 09:24:26 +0100 (Sat, 24 Feb 2007) | 2 lines
> Changed paths:
> M /branches/1.4.x/STATUS
>
> * STATUS: Nominate r23491, r23492.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r23474 | dlr | 2007-02-23 00:04:33 +0100 (Fri, 23 Feb 2007) | 5 lines
> Changed paths:
> M /branches/1.4.x
> M /branches/1.4.x/STATUS
> M /branches/1.4.x/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/client.rb
> M /branches/1.4.x/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/wc.rb
>
> Backport r23405 and r23406 from trunk into the 1.4.x branch, fixing
> typos in Ruby bindings method name and documentation.
>
> Approved by: +1: blair, dlr, kou
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> And this is what I would like to see:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r23493 | malcolm | 2007-02-24 09:24:26 +0100 (Sat, 24 Feb 2007) | 2 lines
> Changed paths:
> M /branches/1.4.x/STATUS
>
> * STATUS: Nominate r23491, r23492.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r23474 | dlr | 2007-02-23 00:04:33 +0100 (Fri, 23 Feb 2007) | 5 lines
> Changed paths:
> M /branches/1.4.x
> M /branches/1.4.x/STATUS
> M /branches/1.4.x/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/client.rb
> M /branches/1.4.x/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/wc.rb
>
> Backport r23405 and r23406 from trunk into the 1.4.x branch, fixing
> typos in Ruby bindings method name and documentation.
>
> Approved by: +1: blair, dlr, kou
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r23406 | blair | 2007-02-16 03:30:50 +0100 (Fri, 16 Feb 2007) | 4 lines
> Changed paths:
> M /trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/wc.rb
>
> * subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/wc.rb:
> (merge_prop_diffs):
> Renamed from mrege_prop_diffs.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r23405 | blair | 2007-02-16 03:29:38 +0100 (Fri, 16 Feb 2007) | 3 lines
> Changed paths:
> M /trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/client.rb
>
> * subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/svn/client.rb:
> Spelling fix: s/avaiable/available/g.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think this example might not even be the best one, because this is a
> release branch. But think of the output of svn log of SVN trunk after
> the merge-tracking branch is merged. You probably don't care about
> anything else *but* seeing the actual revisions that are the commits in
> the branch. Having them "quoted" like svnmerge.py does doesn't help in
> any way. It just highlights an implementation detail of how SVN merges
> work.
>
> Notice that if you really need, you can still know that the commit was
> done in another branch by looking at the modifies paths (in the
> --verbose output shown above). I assume you really don't need this
> information most of the time, but still it's there.
>
> Moreover, with the example above, it would be nice if "svn diff -c23405"
> did the right thing, even if you're sitting in the branch...

This idea of representing the merged revisions inline when using
'--merge-sensitive' is starting to grow on me. Should they be included
in all 'svn log' invocations, or just enabled by using '--verbose'?

I guess, without '--verbose' it may be difficult to determine that the
revision came in as a result of a merge.

Thoughts?

-Hyrum