Hi there, I was following this thread with much interest.
Allow me to jump in as well.
At Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:31:51 -0500,
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> Rick LaBanca wrote:
>
> > This will do, it's just not as easy as cvs because as you said, you see the
> > changes from the branch once merged, but you won't see the detail of those
> > in the branch, unless like you say you hunt it down. Is the only way to know
> > it was changed in a branch from the log comment?
>
> Sure, but this is part of the process of bug hunting anyway.
>
> Suppose you see buggy behavior in /trunk/foo.c. You run 'svn log
> --verbose foo.c > logfile', load the logfile into your editor, then
> start reading about all the changes made to the file.
:
> Does this example make the process clearer? I find this much more
> elegant than CVS, honestly. I'm not looking at cryptic RCS revision
> quads on separate files, deducing which ones are on a branch, wondering
> which file changes were meant to go together... I'm looking at whole
> changesets here.
>
> What's missing from this process, that you wish you had?
IFF the commiter didn't write a good log message and you are
to hunt THAT down (it happens!), is there an easy way to get
a list of all the branches that contains at least one commit
to this file foo.c? Preferably, the listing should show
each such branch with the rev with which the branch
happened, and from which branch/trunk it branched (i.e. its
parent).
Of course I understand that you could be merging diffs made
to some other file, bar.c, in some other or same branch, and
in THIS case, you simply have to rely on the committer
writing a useful log, whether its svn or cvs. Nevertheless,
I'd say it's much common to merge the diffs of the same file
that's on another branch.
--
Hiroharu Tamaru
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 30 06:33:26 2004