Bert Huijben wrote on Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 01:14:20 +0100:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
> > Sent: vrijdag 20 maart 2015 01:00
> > To: Timour Khanipov
> > Cc: users_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Status of files with whitespace and EOL changes only
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 04:40:14PM +0400, Timour Khanipov wrote:
> > > It would be nice however for the 'svn status' command to have a flag
> > > which would not show or mark in a special way the files which have only
> > > whitespace and/or end of line style changes. This flag exists for the
> > > 'svn diff' command ('-x --ignore-space-change --ignore-eol-style ' etc).
> > > What do you think of adding similar flags for the 'svn status' command?
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea.
> >
> > If your working copy is single-revision (`svnversion` doesn't print
> > colons or letters), you could simulate that functionality with:
> >
> > % svn diff --summarize -r BASE -x-w
>
> I'm not sure how well it fits the status implementation.
>
> Status is completely optimized for performance and usually it does the most
> efficient file comparisons possible (preferably just timestamps). Doing more
> things in this generic code that drives many subsystems of Subversion would
> slow many normal operations, and moves away from the model where status just
> reports what is modified/ready for commit.
Well, two things. First, "status -x --ignore-all-whitespace" does seem
like a logical operation: "What has changed, other than whitespace".
That is, "what are the functional changes ready for commit".
Second, I assumed it could be implemented without slowing down other
uses of status. The meaning of "-x --ignore-all-whitespace" would be
"consider as unmodified some files that would otherwise be reported
as 'M'". Therefore, the extra cost for regular status runs (those that
don't ignore whitespace changes) should be a single boolean flag check
("was -x passed?") for each file about to be reported as 'M'.
Sure, 'status -x-w' itself would have to do a diff for each file that
has changed, but users who won't use that feature won't notice an extra
cost...
Right?
> Daniel: diff --summarize ignores all file contents, so it just ignores the
> -x -w arguments, just like it ignores --git.
> (It drives the complete diff code, except for looking at actual file
> contents). And -r BASE would +- the default behavior, so doesn't require a
> flag.
I stand corrected.
Daniel
Received on 2015-03-20 01:30:30 CET