Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> writes: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Noorul Islam K M <noo...@collab.net> wrote: > >> Daniel Becroft <djcbecr...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 27/01/2011, at 17:04, Noorul Islam K M <noo...@collab.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am planning to work on issue 3690. Before starting with this I have >>>> few questions. >>>> >>>> 1. Hyrum updated the issue with his comment stating that already there >>>> is work going on in the branch ignore-mergeinfo which addresses >>>> subset of issue 3690, i.e ignoring changes to svn:mergeinfo. Is >>>> svn:mergeinfo an svn property set using svn pset command? I think Zvi >>>> Rackover is talking about a new option passing which a user can >>>> ignore revisions with just the following property changes alone. >>>> >>>> author eol-style externals keywords mime-type >>>> date executable ignore log needs-lock >>> >>> Fyi, svn:author, svn:date and svn:log are revision properties - changes to >>> these don't appear in the log. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel >>> Sent from my phone. >>> >> >> I started working on this and I think I completed the changes for >> svn_ra_local. Attached is the patch. This is a work in progress. I would >> like to get some initial comments/suggestions on the patch and would >> like to know whether I am proceeding on right direction. >> >> This patch adds new option '--ignore-properties' to 'log' sub >> command. If this option is provided then command ignore revisions that >> has only property changes from output. > > I haven't reviewed the patch, but would like to discuss the approach. > > Ignoring all or none of a set of prop mods may not be granular enough. > Since consumers rarely change mergeinfo without changing content, I > don't see that the new behavior would be exercised very often. What > we really want to do is filter out mergeinfo changes on a per-node > basis, not a per-revision basis as the new docs claim. (Perhaps the > docs are inaccurate?) > > I don't see anywhere in the patch where you address RA layers other > than ra_local. Also, what is the expected behavior when operating
I mentioned this in the mail. I will be handling this in the future. I just wanted get feedback from list so that I might not end up direction less. > against older servers? If you send the ignore_properties flag to > older servers, they will just ignore the flag and return all the > revisions, and the client will dutifully report them. Do you have a > plan for this scenario? Thank you for pointing this out. So far I have not thought about this. What about throwing an error, if there the server version is less than what we expect? > > Finally, is there a reason why you chose to do this against trunk, > rather than the ignore-mergeinfo-log branch, which already addresses > many of the above concerns? I've been hacking on that branch a bit > lately, and it isn't complete but patches and review are definitely > welcome. > I did this against trunk because I could see lots of changes in ignore-mergeinfo-log branch. For me to avoid confusion, I thought I will start preparing patch against trunk. Also if I include this option also to the ignore-mergeinfo-log branch, will that be possible to factor out my changes alone? Or is it a good idea to have a separate branch for this. I am not sure at this point. Do you mean to say that ignore-mergeinfo-log has an option to filter out revisions being send to the receiver if that revision contains only property changes? Isn't that issue 3690 all about? > Anyway, these are my thoughts, I'm interested in what others have to say. > Yes, I am also looking for more suggestions and feedback. Thanks and Regards Noorul
