Hans-Emil Skogh wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I got some pretty strange results today when I tried to blame a file
> with "Include merge info" enabled. TortoiseBlame showed a lot of things
> that didn't make any sense. For example a large part of the file as
> modified by a developer that had only changed one line in that part of
> the file. (When viewing without merge info enabled, everything looked
> like I excpected, but then the information is of little value as I only
> see the merge-commits...) I then tried to use a text viewer to view the
> blames, and didn't get much wiser.
>
> Here's an excerpt from the blame output, with path, author and code omitted:
> --- begin ---
> line rev rev date
> ...
> G 1088 927 1048 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1089 927 1048 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1090 1 1 2009-01-21 10:37:28
> G 1091 1031 1048 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1092 1031 1048 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1093 1031 1048 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1094 1031 1048 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1095 1031 1048 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1096 1 1 2009-01-21 10:37:28
> G 1097 927 1048 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1098 1031 1 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1099 1031 1 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1100 1031 1 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1101 1031 1 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1102 1031 1 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1103 1031 1 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1104 1031 1 2009-04-01 13:18:44
> G 1105 1 1048 2009-01-21 10:37:28
> G 1106 1 1048 2009-01-21 10:37:28
> G 1107 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1108 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1109 1 1048 2009-01-21 10:37:28
> G 1110 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1111 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1112 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1113 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1114 1 1048 2009-01-21 10:37:28
> G 1115 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1116 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> G 1117 927 1 2009-03-30 16:06:52
> --- end ---
>
> Tortoise blame seems to use the left "rev" column as source for the
> blame info in this case.
>
> As I'm interpreting the result, the left rev column shows the latest
> edit to a certain line, and the right rev column shown the latest merge
> affecting that line. Looking at line 1088 this makes sense. In revision
> 927 this line was edited on a branch and in revision 1048 it was merged
> back to trunk (where I'm doing the blame). But looking at line 1099
> things look kinda strange strange. This line was edited in revision 1031
> (a whitespace only change), and it was reintegrated in 1048, but the
> second column does not indicate any change. Line 1117 wasn't edited at
> all in revision 927!
>
> Am I missinterpreting something here, or am I looking at an error in the
> blame function on the SVN side?
Can you try the svn CLI to do the blame and compare?
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=757&dsMessageId=1579021
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-07 17:49:01 CEST