Your message dated Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:32:28 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line automatic keyword un-expansion on 'svn {ps,pd,pe}
svn:keywords'?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: subversion
Version: 1.2.3dfsg1-3
Severity: normal
Let's explain this by example:
Create a file with the $Id$ keyword and make svn expand it:
~$ svnadmin create $HOME/repos
~$ svn co file://$HOME/repos wc1
~$ cd wc1
~/wc1$ echo '$Id$' > test
~/wc1$ svn add test
~/wc1$ svn ps svn:keywords Id test
~/wc1$ svn ci -m 'added test'
let's first check that all is ok:
~/wc1$ cat test
$Id: test 1 2006-03-14 14:14:09Z wizztick $
~/wc1$ svn cat file://$HOME/repos/test
$Id: test 1 2006-03-14 14:14:09Z wizztick $
All ok, but I did not want the keyword afterall, let's remove it again:
~/wc1$ svn pd svn:keywords test
~/wc1$ svn ci -m 'removed prop svn:keywords'
~/wc1$ cat test
$Id: test 1 2006-03-14 14:14:09Z wizztick $
~/wc1$ svn cat file://$HOME/repos/test
$Id$
~/wc1$ svn st
~/wc1$ svn diff
No changes!!!??? I see a difference between the local and repository
version!
~/wc1$ touch test
~/wc1$ svn st
M test
~/wc1$ svn diff
Index: test
===================================================================
--- test (revision 2)
+++ test (working copy)
@@ -1 +1 @@
-$Id$
+$Id: test 1 2006-03-14 14:14:09Z wizztick $
ok, this is what I expected.
Without this touch svn does not record any changes, which should not
happen. A quick fix would be to touch all WC files which have
svn:keywords changed/removed. A better fix would be to undo the
expansion of the keywords:
- on commit use svn:keywords property in BASE to remove expanded
keywords (already happens?)
- on update use svn:keyword in BASE to undo the expansion (before BASE
is updated) and use the new svn:keywords property to expand again
I hope I made the bug clear.
cheers,
Christof
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686-smp
Locale: LANG=nl_NL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages subversion depends on:
ii db4.3-util 4.3.29-4 Berkeley v4.3 Database Utilities
ii libapr0 2.0.55-4 the Apache Portable Runtime
ii libc6 2.3.6-3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libneon24 0.24.7.dfsg-3 An HTTP and WebDAV client library
ii libsvn0 1.2.3dfsg1-3 shared libraries used by Subversio
ii patch 2.5.9-4 Apply a diff file to an original
subversion recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.3.0-1
[Julian Foad]
> As far as I can tell, we're pretty much in agreement that the current
> behaviour is right. The fundamental point is:
>
> A keyword absent from 'svn:keywords' does NOT mean that Subversion
> should contract it, it means that Subversion should not touch it
> nor even require that it parses syntactically.
>
> So we're left with the lesser question:
>
> * Should we provide an easy one-step facility to contract and then ignore
> a keyword?
>
> My answer: no, I don't see any good reason for doing so. I recommend the
> bug report be closed as "fixed", since the definite bug (in diff) noted in
> the original Debian report has been fixed and I don't think further action
> is required.
This is as close to official word from upstream as we're likely to get.
The 1.2.3 bug was fixed in 1.3.0; the current behavior isn't buggy,
it's just not what everyone would like.
When you remove a 'svn:keywords' keyword, you'll notice it in the diff.
(You _do_ run diff before commit, right?) You may see this as a
negative, but it's really a positive in that it reminds you that you
may have intended to remove the keyword entirely from the file itself,
a process which definitely needs to be done manually.
I'm closing this bug, as per Julian's suggestion. Thanks,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
