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

Re: Kidney blame with relaxed older end bound

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:15:05 +0200

On 01.07.2013 20:07, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:41:10 +0200:
>> On 01.07.2013 19:36, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Thinking about the behaviour of 'svn blame -r 50:20 file_at_50':
>>>
>>> Right now, if I'm not mistaken, it wants 'file_at_5 -r 20' to exist. Johan
>>> suggested it should automatically round 20 up to the oldest revision in
>>> which the file existed, to enable, for example, 'svn blame -r 50:0' by
>>> analogy to 'svn log -r 0:50'.
>>>
>>> But what if the file existed in revision 10, got deleted in revision 11,
>>> and resurrected (by 'svn cp file_at_10 file && svn ci') in r30? What
>>> should the end of the blame chain be --- file_at_r30, file_at_r20, or file_at_r10?
>> I'd expect that to depend on whatever happens to be the peg revision in
>> the blame incantation. I can never remember what the default is in any
>> particular case.
> The invocation is 'svn blame -r 40:20 file_at_50'. The file was created as
> ^/iota_at_r10, delted in r11, resurrected as ^/iota in r30, and not
> added/copied/deleted/removed otherwise. (It might have had text and/or
> prop mods at various revisions.) What is the output?

Whatever resurrect means in this context, I'd expect "svn blame" to use
exactly the same revisions that "svn log" shows when given the same
parameters.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane_at_wandisco.com
Received on 2013-07-01 20:15:55 CEST

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