Kamesh Jayachandran wrote on Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 21:22:05 +0530:
> On 12/08/2010 09:21 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-12-04, Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
>>>> I understand your patch fixes the following two cases.
>>>>
>>>> 1. svn di -cN explicitly_reinstated_file_with_mod_at_rN
>>>> Hi Kamesh and Prabhu.
>>>> What you're describing here sounds good - it sounds like a simpler and
>>>> more definite change than what I understood before - but I'm not sure
>>>> precisely what "explicitly_reinstated_file_with_mod_at_rN" means.
>>> I mean the following,
>> [...]
>>
>> Thanks, Kamesh - that clarifies it. So that's the case where a file is
>> deleted and then a pre-deletion revision of it is copied back to the
>> same path where it existed before.
>>
>> In my experiments I find the same problem also exists when a file is
>> copied to a new path from a revision older than the value of HEAD at the
>> time of the copy. For example:
>>
>> $ cd wc
>>
>> $ echo "line1"> test.c
>>
>> $ svn add test.c
>> A test.c
>>
>> $ svn ci -m "" test.c
>> Adding test.c
>> Transmitting file data .
>> Committed revision 1.
>>
>> $ svn mkdir ^/foo -m "An unrelated change"
>>
>> Committed revision 2.
>>
>> $ svn cp test.c new.c
>> A new.c
>>
>> $ echo "line2">> new.c
>>
>> $ svn ci -m "" new.c
>> Adding new.c
>> Transmitting file data .
>> Committed revision 3.
>>
>> $ svn diff -c3 new.c
>> svn: Unable to find repository location for 'new.c' in revision 2
>>
That looks similar to the issue #2873 ('svn diff -cN of file added in rN')
that stsp tried to persuade me on IRC into looking into a couple of days ago.
(I still haven't closed the editor instance open on that part of the code)
>> $ svn diff -c3
>> Index: new.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- new.c (revision 0)
>> +++ new.c (revision 3)
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> +line1
>> +line2
>>
>>
>>>> Please could you include a test for these cases in your patch? Then it
>>>> will be absolutely clear.
>>> Prabhu already has one. Right now he is working on removing the
>>> profileration of UI param diff-copy-from from all the layer in favour
>>> of generic send_copyfrom_args.
>> That's great. It would be good to include the above test scenario as
>> well.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> - Julian
>
> Sure he would. Right now he is teaching the 'svn_wc_get_diff_editor6'
> what he has taught for svn_client__get_diff_editor.
>
> He will have tests for that too.
>
I've been on this list for several years, and that's the first time
I hear "he will" and "he would".
> With regards
> Kamesh Jayachandran
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on 2010-12-08 17:44:14 CET