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

Re: RFC: Untangling the peg revision knot (was: A preliminary study of non-contiguous transformations in the Hilbert space of Alexandrian solutions)

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:58:35 +0100

Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:23 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I could apply some more thinking here, but my initial thought is
>>> "fuck ya!". The peg shit screws me up. It was very disturbing to return
>>> to svn to find that specifying old revisions didn't work at ALL like I
>>> would expect. Dug in, and found the peg stuff. Agreed that it generally
>>> doesn't work as expected.
>>>
>> "Works as expected" depends largely on the expectations. I find that the
>> peg revision algorithm works exactly as expected and intended.

Yes, the algorithm works as expected, but users aren't invoking an
algorithm, they're using commands that pass quite unexpected defaults to
said algorithm. :)

>> They certain
>> work way better than before the peg revision algorithm was designed -- I
>> mean, it was the chosen solution for a slew of real bugs that all users were
>> hitting (not just those that didn't take the time to understand how to use
>> Subversion).
>>
>
> I do not want to spend time thinking of specific examples, but I
> recall when we have discussed this in the past that there are certain
> commands where the expected default would be HEAD and others where it
> would be the same as the operative revision. We decided it was better
> for all commands to be consistent in the default rather than having it
> vary for each command. Branko seems to be suggesting the latter.
> That for each command we base the default on what the user is likely
> to expect?
>

Yes, that is exactly what I'm proposing. Leave the algorithm alone -- it
works and is certainly necessary. But the current defaults for peg
revisions are sometimes horribly wrong, to the extent that the simplest
commands produce unexpected results.

For example, take the example of "svn ls"; I expect this:

    svn ls -r12 svn://example.com/frob

to be equivalent to this:

    svn ls -r12 svn://example.com/frob_at_12

but a) it's not (*quite* unexpected) and b) why should I have to write
the rev and peg both if they're the same?

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-26 19:58:55 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.