[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, 20 Feb 2015 23:34:25 +0000

Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 20:15:29 +0000:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> > issue #4565 "reverse blame, aka kidney blame"
> > [...] I want to see:
> >
> >   * The first revision in which the line was changed (or deleted) after
> > r1400000.
>
> The following help text explains how I think it should behave:
>
> [[[
> blame (praise, annotate, ann): Show when each line of a file was last (or
> next) changed.
> usage: blame [-rM:N] TARGET[@REV]...
>
>   Annotate each line of a file with the revision number and author of the
>   last change (or optionally the next change) to that line.
>
>   With no revision range (same as -r0:REV), or with '-r M:N' where M < N,
>   annotate each line that is present in revision N of the file,
>   with the last revision at or before rN that changed or added the line,
>   looking back no further than rM.
>
>   With a reverse revision range '-r M:N' where M > N,
>   annotate each line that is present in revision N of the file,
>   with the NEXT revision AFTER rN that changed or DELETED the line,
>   looking forward no further than rM.
>
>   Write the annotated result to standard output.
>
>   If specified, REV determines in which revision the target is first
>   looked up.
> ]]]
>
> Makes sense?

As discussed on IRC: yes, makes sense. Thanks to you and to Bert for
fixing this!
Received on 2015-02-21 00:36:12 CET

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