[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] 'blame -g' revision ordering

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:49:35 -0600

Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> I just updated to HEAD to try the updated blame -g support. As usual,
>> I am using the merge tracking sample repository I have created which
>> is described here:
>> http://merge-tracking.open.collab.net/servlets/ProjectProcess?documentContainer=c2__Sample%20repository
>> I emailed Hyrum an updated version of the dump file to test with.
>> When I made the same repository, I always did copies with a username
>> of "copier" and merges with a username of "merger". That way, I knew
>> I should never see those names in the blame output. It also make it
>> easy when looking at log -g.
>> For the most part, it is all working perfectly. There is just one
>> file where it does give the right results.
>> $ svn blame -g trunk/products/index.html
>> 1 user <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
>> 1 user "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
>> 1 user <html>
>> 1 user <head>
>> 1 user <meta http-equiv="Content-type"
>> content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
>> 1 user <title></title>
>> 1 user </head>
>> 1 user
>> 1 user <body>
>> 1 user <p>Content for merge tracking early adopter program</p>
>> 1 user
>> G 2 user <p>This is the index page in the products folder.</p>
>> 1 user
>> G 12 merger <p>At our company we have 3 products:
>> G 2 user Big
>> G 12 merger Medium
>> G 2 user Little
>> G 2 user </p>
>> 1 user
>> G 11 auser <p>Check out our new roadmap!</p>
>> 1 user
>> 1 user <p>List of children:</p>
>> 1 user <ul>
>> 1 user <li>--</li>
>> 1 user </ul>
>> 1 user
>> 1 user <p>Copyright 2007, CollabNet</p>
>> 1 user </body>
>> 1 user </html>
>> You see those revision 12 = merger lines in the output? Those should
>> not exist. If you look at the diagram in the document I linked to,
>> those lines of code were all changed in r9 on trunk. They should have
>> gone into /branches/b when it was created from trunk at r10. In r12,
>> /branches/a is merged into /branches/b. I did diffs of all the
>> revisions to make sure the output is correct. There is just something
>> about this scenario that is giving throwing off the blame output.
>> Actually, looking again, the lines for revision 2 are also wrong in
>> that they indicate it is a merge. Really just the 1-line marked as
>> r11 should show as being the result of a merge.
> The attached patch fixes this particular occurrence of the issue. But
> I'm still a little unsure if the logic is correct. This modifies the
> blame handler to prefer older revisions over newer ones for lines in
> which the merged revision and the mainline revision differ. Previously,
> we always chose the merged revision, but for identical lines of a file,
> we want the mainline revision if it is older, because that reflects the
> true author of the change.
> Is this logic flawed?

Hearing nothing, I've committed this in r29202, and nominated it for
backport to 1.5.x.

I believe this fixes all outstanding issues with 'blame -g'.


> [[[
> Fix 'svn blame -g' revision selection, specifically the problem
> identified by
> markphip in this thread:
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-01/0614.shtml
> * subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c
> (blame_receiver): Instead of using the merged revision anytime to two
> revisions differ, choose the earlier of the two.
> ]]]

Received on 2008-02-06 15:49:48 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.