Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:40:31 +0100: > I think teaching "svn blame" to view the old repo would be harder: > it would require more intrusive code changes in svn_client_blame(). > It's not theoretically difficult to do, of course, but perhaps the > code-to-value ratio would not be worth having in libsvn_client ... hmm, > unless we re-architect the blame code so that it's fed diffs from the > client layer instead of fetching them itself, then it could be done > really cleanly. The output format would just need a minor tweak to > distinguish old from new revs. >
How? Perhaps some sort of N-ary identifier --- "%d.%d" % (repos_number, revision-number) for the chain case, or "%s.%d" % (repos_path_from_root, revision-number) for the tree case. > I think teaching "svn diff" to do general cross-repo diffs would not > be feasible with the current diff implementation. However, one of my Why? If old-repos@rHEAD == new-repos@r0, then you could construct a delta between old-repos@rM and new-repos@rN by combining the deltas [rM, rHEAD] and [r0, rN], which then would allow the diff...? > goals is to generalize the diff code further so it could support such > things (cross-repo, unversioned local tree, etc.). That would be useful > in theory, but in practice I can't see it really being used very often > in this start-again scenario. But any single-rev diff is easily > supported because the cut-over revision is present in both repos. (We > can assume that the tree in old@OLD_HEAD is identical to new@1.) So > maybe we'd want to make single-rev diffs and all same-repo diffs easier > by tweaking "svn diff" to follow the specified path back into a revision > in the old repo, a bit like what I said above for "svn log", if some > special switch is specified. > > Any other commands or work flows that might be really useful? I > wouldn't dream of trying to make "svn up" go back to the old repo, that > would certainly be over the top. And I wouldn't expect "svn cat", "svn Yeah, probably overkill, especially in the mixed-revisions case. (We could somehow signal, via the UUIDs, that the two repositories are related... but whatever; that's Future Work.) You mention using 'svn up' for backdating. What about using it for updating? i.e., in a working copy of the 'old' repository, to make 'svn up' print an advisory message saying "Oops; the history has been restarted; checkout a new working copy from %s" % URL? > proplist" etc. to be worth bothering with, unless all such simple > read-only commands get the same functionality "for free". > > > Mad or genius? (And I know it wouldn't be worth bothering in a small Yes :-) > repository; let's assume it's a big and busy project with lots of > interesting history.) > > - Julian > > > [1] I'm just making up numbers here; I don't know what sort of numbers > the customer that brought up this idea has. > >
