Troy Curtis Jr wrote:
> Last night I checked out the latest trunk (r27167) to start really
> looking at the new merge-tracking features (which I am really excited
> about). I'm a little confused at the choice of working in the 'svn
> log -g' output. (I'm using the merge-tracking early adopter sample
> repo).
>
> Here a snippet of the log output in question: (svn log -gv
> file:///share/repo/trunk)
>
> <log>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r8 | merger | 2007-05-30 14:29:16 -0500 (Wed, 30 May 2007) | 1 line
> Changed paths:
> M /trunk
>
> Block r7 from branch a
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r7 | auser | 2007-05-30 14:27:04 -0500 (Wed, 30 May 2007) | 1 line
> Changed paths:
> A /branches/a/blocked
> A /branches/a/blocked/index.html
> Result of a merge from: r8
>
> Create blocked folder. This should only ever exist on branch a
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r6 | merger | 2007-05-25 19:16:28 -0500 (Fri, 25 May 2007) | 1 line
> Changed paths:
> M /trunk
> M /trunk/index.html
> M /trunk/news/index.html
> A /trunk/products/medium.html (from /branches/a/products/medium.html:5)
>
> Merge branch a. Added medium product.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r4 | auser | 2007-05-25 19:13:35 -0500 (Fri, 25 May 2007) | 1 line
> Changed paths:
> M /branches/a/index.html
> M /branches/a/news/index.html
> A /branches/a/products/medium.html
> Result of a merge from: r6
>
> Create page for medium product.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> </log>
>
> "Result of a merge from: r8" in the log for r7 for example doesn't
> make any sense to me. What this to me is "r7 is the result of a merge
> from r8", which of course doesn't make since. How can a revision be a
> merge result FROM a later revision? I really think it should really
> be "Source of a merge for: r8".
There was some discussion a while back about changing the wording, but I
don't know if that ended up going anywhere. One of the proposed
wordings was "Via merge in: rXX" Would that be less confusing?
> I'm looking at this as how I'm going to explain it to my users when we
> switch (hopefully some time next summer after 1.5 has been out for a
> while).
>
> Hum looking at it just now I think I see what it really means. Your
> really saying that the display of r7 is a result of it being the
> source of a merge from r8. Even then I still think the
> wording/formatting is quite right. Perhaps indenting the logs of the
> sources? Otherwise this is very confusing and I KNOW I'll be
> fielding many confused questions from my users down the road.
This was discussed at length back in April:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-04/0650.shtml
The goal of 'log -g' is to show where the changes really happened,
regardless of whether it was on a branch or on the main line of
development. The conclusion of the above thread was that message
indentation didn't really add very much toward accomplishing that goal.
-Hyrum
Received on Sat Oct 13 19:29:11 2007