[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: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:58:48 -0700

Paul burba added and shortly after reverted (as no longer used) code to
separate these steps. You can probably revive that code.

Bert From: Daniel Shahaf
Sent: 14/06/2013 17:49
To: Bert Huijben
Cc: Johan Corveleyn; Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 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.
>

What I'd conceptually like to do is:

1 - Open RA session to repository root
2 - Resolve the two svn_opt_revision_t arguments to numbers; call the larger X
3 - Reparent to 'target_at_peg_revision -r X'
4 - Run blame

But the current code doesn't separate (1) and (2).

Daniel

> 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 18:59:42 CEST

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