On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:20 PM Branko Čibej <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026, 14:40 Daniel Sahlberg,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Den ons 20 maj 2026 kl 10:55 skrev <[email protected]>:
>
> Author: rinrab
> Date: Wed May 20 08:55:33 2026
> New Revision: 1934426
>
> Log:
> Use UTF-8 alignement for the 'author' column in the
'svn blame' command.
>
> * subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c
> (#include): Add svn_utf_private.h.
> (print_line_info): Call
svn_utf__cstring_utf8_align_right() to
> prepare author.
>
> Modified:Agreed, this is a very breaking/broken
> subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c
>
> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c
>
==============================================================================
> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c Wed May
20 08:30:24 2026 (r1934425)
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c Wed May
20 08:55:33 2026 (r1934426)
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>
> /*** Includes. ***/
>
> +#include "private/svn_utf_private.h"
> #include "svn_client.h"
> #include "svn_error.h"
> #include "svn_dirent_uri.h"
> @@ -150,8 +151,9 @@ print_line_info(svn_stream_t *out,
> time_stdout = "
-";
> }
>
> - SVN_ERR(svn_stream_printf(out, pool, "%s %10s %s
", rev_str,
> - author ? author : " -",
> + SVN_ERR(svn_stream_printf(out, pool, "%s %s %s
", rev_str,
> + svn_utf__cstring_utf8_align_right(
> + author ? author : "-", 10, pool),
> time_stdout));
After this change the output of svn blame is different
from before if
there is a very long author name.
I have tested with svn compiled about a month ago (the
version in
$PATH) and from a brand new (in ./subversion/svn). I have
prepared a
repo with a file where all lines are authored by "dsg"
and the
remaining by "averylongauthor" (15 characters, ASCII).
This is my commit #2 by the long author:
[[[
dsg@devi-25-01:~/svn_trunk3$ ./subversion/svn/svn proplist -v
--revprop -r2 ../wc/foo
Unversioned properties on revision 2:
svn:author
averylongauthor
svn:date
2026-05-20T11:52:35.534418Z
svn:log
Modify line 4
]]]
Blame before the change above:
[[[
dsg@devi-25-01:~/svn_trunk3$ svn blame ../wc/foo
1 dsg 1
1 dsg 2
1 dsg 3
2 averylonga Line 4
1 dsg 5
1 dsg 6
1 dsg 7
1 dsg 8
1 dsg 9
]]]
Author names are right adjusted but when overflowing, the
first 10
characters are displayed.
Blame after the change above:
[[[
dsg@devi-25-01:~/svn_trunk3$ ./subversion/svn/svn blame
../wc/foo
1 dsg 1
1 dsg 2
1 dsg 3
2 longauthor Line 4
1 dsg 5
1 dsg 6
1 dsg 7
1 dsg 8
1 dsg 9
]]]
Author names are right adjusted but when overflowing, the
last 10
characters are displayed.
(I'm aware there are more instances of svn_stream_printf
and I haven't
analysed exactly which one is involved here).
I think we need to keep the precision in the formatting
string and use
the _align_left version.
Kind regards,
Daniel
Agreed, this is a very breaking/broken change. Changes that
affect program output need to be discussed on list and
tested. This comment caught my attention:
+ * Please note, there might be a little artifact when there
is a wider
+ * character, then the string won't be perfectly aligned.
If true, it implies that svn_utf8_width() or whatever the
function is called isn't returning correct results.
I can't find the discussion about this now but I'd just note
that calculating the width of a Unicode string by only
looking at individual code points is not correct. Therefore,
pruning away individual code points without context in order
to get a shorter string is not correct, either. Some Unicode
glyphs can use up to 5 code points.
-- Brane
Whoever sold us Unicode as a fixed-width encoding was running
a pyramid scheme. 😏
I did NOT mean to intentionally break anything. Please don't say
that a change is fundamentally broken just because you don't like
something.
The implementation might've been bad - it's not the idea.
> Changes that affect program output need to be discussed on list
and tested.
I completely disagree. First of all, we live by
commit-then-review. Of course we need to discuss important design
decisions that we make. This is not one of these.
Second, I did not want to change behaviour. This was a mistake
that I made. I did not realise that if you resize a box of UI
anywhere else, the text still stays on the left side, ok? Please
don't insult me for not knowing how to think or whatever that was
that you meant.
We already had incidents of certain people spoiling features
because of the "wrong discussion and approval" process. I want to
avoid them as much as possible in the future. This really creates
a toxic environment on dev@svn. I encourage that we stay
respectful to each other and keep conversations constructive.
Yes, review is important. But not to the point where we have the
least significant things go through patches. Sometimes you can
just do a thing.
By the way, did it ever stop you from breaking the trunk for over
6 months and delaying the release for some extra time and
refusing to revert changes after you were pointed out that it was
actually breaking? I didn't see you reverting that.
