Re: log/blame -g and old servers

On 10/12/07, David Glasser <glasser@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> It looks like running "svn log -g" against an old server just silently
> acts as if the -g isn't there. (Maybe the same is true for blame as
> well?) Is this OK? I think this should be an error, so that the user
> knows that the requested info isn't there. (Sure, you wouldn't expect
> there to be mergeinfo for an old server, but one can imagine
> situations where an old server is being run against a repository that
> used to have a 1.5 server on it...)

In Subclipse I just currently always do blame -g (user cannot even
turn it off). I could change this. I didn't want to add any extra UI
since there currently isn't any after you take the option.

Also in Subclipse, using -g for History is an option, but it would be
real hard to turn it on/off based on the repository.

I do not see any reason the command should fail in these scenarios.
You could just as easily say the --depth commands should fail. In
both cases the commands "work properly". But say I do a --depth=files
checkout against a huge tree, an old server sends all the data and it
gets discarded. I got the final result I wanted, but maybe I didn't
expect it to take an hour.

I think things are right the way they are.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org