On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 07:52:00AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> Thanks for bringing up this explanation.
Indeed!
I had totally forgotten about this conversion from years ago.
> So the second inconsistency is
> because '-c X' actually defines operative range X-1:X and the source of the
> copy is X-2 in this case.
>
> Indeed, a lot of subtleties and inconsistencies that appear to be bugs.
>
> Is there ever going to be SVN 2.0 that can finally break these bug-for-bug
> compatibility promises? Is there a list of things that are going to be
> changed in 2.0?
I wouldn't object to changing 'svn diff' to match the behaviour
of 'svnlook diff' in this particular case. The inconsistency
does not help anyone, and our compatibilty guarantees aren't
*that* solid. We've certainly changed some output of our tooling
when it helped our users, even where doing so hurt scripts.
I think my concerns were more about the effort involved, rather
than compatibility. The process of adding --show-copies-as-adds
was surprisingly difficult. I wouldn't want to go back to that
code myself. I would review another brave soul's patches, though.
The effort involved is easy to underestimate, unfortunately.
Received on 2018-02-27 17:51:06 CET