Re: Question about svn log -g

On 10/13/07, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>

Yes, I think "Via merge in: rXX" would be better. It doesn't seem
perfect but at least it doesn't imply that it means something else.
Hum, or maybe "Source of merge in: rXX", or "Merge source for: rXX".
This way it describes the relationship of the revision the sentence is
in to the revisions listed and not the relation of the LOG of the
revision to the LOG of the revisons listed.

One of the things I think indenting would get you is parsability.
With very simple parsing you would know that rX starting in the first
column would be a "real" revision for that path and if there was white
space it would mean it was a source revision. Of course you can still
dig into the message to find the "Result of merge from: rX" (or
whatever the final wording is :) ), but that is harding.

I can see the issue of pushing the content too far to the right,
especially if you did more indention for more depth of merge-tracking.
 But even one or two spaces would really set those "source" revisions
off from the rest of it and it would be immediately obviously that
they are "dependent" revisions.

All that said I do really believe the wording should be changed to
something else. Even though I now understand what you are trying to
say by it, it still seems to mean something else to me and I really
have to work to see it your way.

Troy

-- 
"Beware of spyware. If you can, use the Firefox browser." - USA Today
Download now at http://getfirefox.com
Registered Linux User #354814 ( http://counter.li.org/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org