C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:29:23 -0500:
> On 11/18/2010 09:57 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:09:57 -0500:
> >> Another subtlety. Say some other change is committed in our under '/Z' in
> >> r3 (but not to '/Z/B/E/alpha'):
> >> svn_fs_copied_from('/Z', r3) = NULL, SVN_INVALID_REVNUM
> >> svn_fs_copied_from('/Z/B/E/alpha', r3) = NULL, SVN_INVALID_REVNUM
> >> svn_fs_history_prev('/Z', r3) = '/Z', r2
> >> svn_fs_history_prev('/Z/B/E/alpha', r3) = '/Z/B/E/alpha', r2
> > Wouldn't the results of the above four calls be the same regardless
> > of whether or not r3 touched /Z/B/E/alpha?
> Um... yes. :-)
> >> Notice also that svn_fs_history_prev() doesn't return information about the
> >> copy source either, because the previous "interesting history location" is
> >> the copy itself.
> > Okay; in other words, svn_fs_history_prev() considers a path-revision
> > which are the *result* of a copy operation an "interesting" location.
> > From this I understand that, if r20 did not touch '^/trunk', then
> > the two calls:
> > svn_fs_history_prev('^/branches/branch', r21)
> > svn_fs_history_prev('^/trunk', r20)
> > will behave identically.
> > On the other hand, in your example, I expect that svn_fs_copied_from()
> > will return /trunk_at_20?
> Yes. svn_fs_copied_from('^/branches/branch', r21) = '/trunk', r20
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2010-11-18 16:35:33 CET