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

Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:41:18 +0200

No typo, but that function doesn't help, since we don't have a revision
in which the file existed; the use-case is to do 'svn blame -r HEAD:0
file' and have the 0 become the first revision in which the file
existed.

It seem the fix is to use svn_client__repos_location_segments(), like
'log' does.

I am still not happy with the svn_client_blame5() patch I committed ---
specifically, with the way it opens at 'end' and then tries to move to
'start' by re-doing the last part of svn_client__ra_session_from_path2().
I think that part needs to be redone. I'm not sure how yet.

Bert Huijben wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:24:58 -0700:
> Svn_ra_get_deleted_rev() ?
> (could have a typo)
>
> Bert From: Daniel Shahaf
> Sent: 14/06/2013 17:11
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: Johan Corveleyn; Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
> Bert Huijben wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:06:25 -0700:
> > I would guess 1 and twi are actually the same problem: no node found
> > via peg revision.
> >
> > Bert From: Johan Corveleyn
> > Sent: 14/06/2013 16:51
> > To: Daniel Shahaf
> > Cc: Subversion Development
> > Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:16:06 +0200:
> > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > >> > Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
> > >> >> Daniel:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think that simply enabling M<N (where it is now an error) will create the
> > >> >> situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect
> > >> >> and tries to interpret it based on their desire - leading to confusion. I
> > >> >> believe M<N should still be an error. A new option (--reverse ?) should be
> > >> >> required to make it clear that the user wants the reverse blame walk.
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry, disagree.
> > >> >
> > >> > diff -r 1:5 != diff -r 5:1
> > >> > log -r 1:5 != log -r 5:1
> > >> > merge -r 4:5 != merge -r 5:4
> > >> >
> > >> > With all that in mind, I still think that making 'blame -r 5:4' and
> > >> > 'blame -r 4:5' do different things is the correct course of action.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Okay, I don't feel strongly about this. My only "argument" was that
> > >> people are not used to thinking about the order of rev args when using
> > >> blame. But that doesn't mean they can't get used to it ...
> > >
> > > Implemented in r1493027. No API changes are involved --- this simply
> > > makes 'blame -r 5:4' do something instead of raising an error
> > > immediately --- so I wonder if we should backport it.
> > >
> > > I'll go ahead and put it in STATUS towards 1.8.1, if people prefer a
> > > backport not to happen they can go ahead and cast -0 votes and continue
> > > discussion here.
> >
> > There are still two problems with the implementation you committed in r1493027:
> >
> > With 'svn blame M:N' where M>N
> >
> > 1) It's using the N as peg revision, while it should use M (but you're
> > already working on that).
> >
>
> Should be fixed by r1493106. I'd welcome further review of that, I
> am unsure that the "open ra session to the other svn_opt_revision_t"
> part is idiomatic.
>
> > 2) If N is before the item existed, I get:
> > svn: E195012: Unable to find repository location for
> > 'svn://localhost/path/to/file.txt' in revision 1
> >
> > It would be nice if you could just blame up to the oldest revision
> > close to 'end' where the item still existed.
>
> Yeah, it would be nice if 'svn blame -r HEAD:1' just worked even for
> files added later. I can look into that, but not today :) It would
> be helpful if someone could point me to another place in the codebase
> that solves the same problem.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel
Received on 2013-06-14 17:41:57 CEST

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