Bert fixed the code to work like this, in r1661208.
I committed help text, much like I pasted here, in r1661211.
- Julian
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
issue #4565 reverse blame, aka kidney blame
[...] I want to see:
* The first revision in which the line was
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 20:15:29 +:
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
issue #4565 reverse blame, aka kidney blame
[...] I want to see:
* The first revision in which the line was changed (or deleted) after
r140.
The following help text explains how I think it should
I filed issue #4565 reverse blame, aka kidney blame to track this
enhancement, because I think it is useful to have an issue to coordinate any
change we make in a release.
It currently doesn't behave how I think it should. Try
svn blame -r160:140
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
issue #4565 reverse blame, aka kidney blame
[...] I want to see:
* The first revision in which the line was changed (or deleted) after
r140.
The following help text explains how I think it should behave:
[[[
blame (praise, annotate, ann): Show when each line
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will create the
situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect
and tries to interpret it based on their desire - leading to confusion. I
On 06/14/2013 02:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will create the
situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect
and tries to interpret it based
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de wrote:
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will create the
situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect
Prabhu wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 14:33:57 +0530:
On 06/14/2013 02:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will create the
situation where the user makes a mistake, gets
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:18:35 +0200:
Prabhu wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 14:33:57 +0530:
On 06/14/2013 02:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error)
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:16:06 +0200:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de wrote:
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will create the
situation
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de wrote:
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:16:06 +0200:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de wrote:
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:10:49 -0400:
Daniel:
I think that
I would guess 1 and twi are actually the same problem: no node found
via peg revision.
Bert From: Johan Corveleyn
Sent: 14/06/2013 16:51
To: Daniel Shahaf
Cc: Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf danie
Bert Huijben wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:06:25 -0700:
I would guess 1 and twi are actually the same problem: no node found
via peg revision.
Bert From: Johan Corveleyn
Sent: 14/06/2013 16:51
To: Daniel Shahaf
Cc: Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge
Svn_ra_get_deleted_rev() ?
(could have a typo)
Bert From: Daniel Shahaf
Sent: 14/06/2013 17:11
To: Bert Huijben
Cc: Johan Corveleyn; Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
Bert Huijben wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:06:25 -0700:
I would guess 1 and twi
on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:24:58 -0700:
Svn_ra_get_deleted_rev() ?
(could have a typo)
Bert From: Daniel Shahaf
Sent: 14/06/2013 17:11
To: Bert Huijben
Cc: Johan Corveleyn; Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
Bert Huijben wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013
: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de wrote:
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:16:06 +0200:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de
wrote:
Doug Robinson wrote on Thu, Jun 13
That function and the get revs function can only go from new to old.
That deleted rev is the only one for the other way From: Daniel Shahaf
Sent: 14/06/2013 17:41
To: Bert Huijben
Cc: Johan Corveleyn; Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
No typo
Paul burba added and shortly after reverted (as no longer used) code to
separate these steps. You can probably revive that code.
Bert From: Daniel Shahaf
Sent: 14/06/2013 17:49
To: Bert Huijben
Cc: Johan Corveleyn; Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
Daniel
Definition: kidney blame == blame -r N:M with MN. Currently it is
an error (raised by svn_client_blame5()).
By and large, it should do exactly what 'blame -r M:N' does: walk the
revisions from before-the-colon revision to after-the-colon revision
and then print the contents of the after the
On 13.06.2013 10:35, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
It seems to me it should ideally print '3' for every line, and the user
should pass '-r 2:3' if he wants to distinguish added in r3 from
added before r3. It would be easy to preserve the current behaviour,
though, of printing '-' rather than '2'
Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:54:47 +0200:
On 13.06.2013 10:35, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
It seems to me it should ideally print '3' for every line, and the user
should pass '-r 2:3' if he wants to distinguish added in r3 from
added before r3. It would be easy to preserve the
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danie...@elego.de]
Sent: donderdag 13 juni 2013 10:36
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Kidney blame's behaviour and edge cases
Another issue: what should 'blame -r 3:3' do? Currently it is allowed,
and prints '-' for lines
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will create the
situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect
and tries to interpret it based on their desire - leading to confusion. I
believe MN should still be an error. A new option (--reverse ?)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Doug Robinson
doug.robin...@wandisco.com wrote:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will create the
situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't expect
and tries to interpret it based on their desire -
Johan Corveleyn jcor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Doug Robinson
doug.robin...@wandisco.com wrote:
Daniel:
I think that simply enabling MN (where it is now an error) will
create the
situation where the user makes a mistake, gets something they don't
expect
and tries
25 matches
Mail list logo
