On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 10:45:03PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I ran into this while trying to 'svn up' today, and managed to reproduce
>> >> it in another working copy:
>> >>
>> >> % svn revert -R .
>> >> % cat ./before
>> >> Index: subversion/include/svn_diff.h
>> >> ===================================================================
>> >> --- subversion/include/svn_diff.h (revision 1067829)
>> >> +++ subversion/include/svn_diff.h (working copy)
>> >> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@
>> >> svn_error_t *
>> >> svn_diff_diff_2(svn_diff_t **diff,
>> >> void *diff_baton,
>> >> - const svn_diff_fns2_t *diff_fns,
>> >> + const svn_diff_fns2_t *diff_fns2,
>> >> apr_pool_t *pool);
>> >>
>> >> /** Given a vtable of @a diff_fns/@a diff_baton for reading datasources,
>> >> @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@
>> >> svn_error_t *
>> >> svn_diff_diff3_2(svn_diff_t **diff,
>> >> void *diff_baton,
>> >> - const svn_diff_fns2_t *diff_fns,
>> >> + const svn_diff_fns2_t *diff_fns2,
>> >> apr_pool_t *pool);
>> >>
>> >> /** Given a vtable of @a diff_fns/@a diff_baton for reading datasources,
>> >> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@
>> >> svn_error_t *
>> >> svn_diff_diff4_2(svn_diff_t **diff,
>> >> void *diff_baton,
>> >> - const svn_diff_fns2_t *diff_fns,
>> >> + const svn_diff_fns2_t *diff_fns2,
>> >> apr_pool_t *pool);
>> >>
>> >> /** Given a vtable of @a diff_fns/@a diff_baton for reading datasources,
>> >> % patch -p0 < ./before
>> >> % svn up -q subversion/include/
>> >> % cat -n subversion/include/svn_diff.h | tail
>> >> 296 * Differences, similarities, and conflicts are described by
>> >> lining up
>> >> 297 * "ranges" of data.
>> >> 298 *
>> >> 299 * @note These callbacks describe data ranges in units of "tokens".
>> >> 300 * A "token" is whatever you've defined it to be in your datasource
>> >> 301 * @c svn_diff_fns_t vtable.
>> >> 302 */
>> >> 303 typedef struct svn_diff_output_fns_t
>> >> 304 {
>> >> 305 /* Two-way and three-way diffs both call the first two output
>> >> functions: */
>> >> %
>> >
>> > Wow, weird. I can reproduce it too. I'm looking into it.
>>
>> I'm continuing to try and fix this. For now, some thoughts I typed on IRC:
>>
>> [22:29] <@jcorvel> ok, I'm starting to understand the truncating business
>> [22:30] <@jcorvel> diff is not affected, because it only outputs the
>> modified stuff from the diff chain
>> [22:30] <@jcorvel> (with their context)
>> [22:30] <@jcorvel> but diff3 outputs the entire chain ...
>> [22:31] <@ehu> which is missing its last record?
>> [22:31] <@jcorvel> yes
>> [22:31] <@ehu> evil
>> [22:32] <@jcorvel> I don't add the suffix to that diff chain (except
>> the first 50 lines, because I don't consider them part of the
>> identical suffix, to help diff/blame find a good way to output it)
>> [22:33] <@jcorvel> that was really an early optimization (when I was
>> only focusing on diff2): I saw that it didn't need the identical
>> suffix to do its work correctly
>> [22:33] <@jcorvel> that way, I could avoid counting lines while
>> scanning the identical suffix (which I do need to do for prefix
>> scanning, but I thought I could get away with it for the suffix)
>> [22:34] <@jcorvel> only later I included diff3 and diff4, and
>> considered everything ok when the test-suite passed
>> [22:34] <@jcorvel> if there would have been a merge test with more
>> than 50 common lines at the end, that test would have failed ...
>> [22:36] <@jcorvel> so, there are a couple of ways to fix this:
>> [22:36] <@jcorvel> 0. remove suffix scanning
>> [22:36] <@jcorvel> 1. make suffix scanning count lines, so it can
>> include a "common" diff chunk at the end of the chain, with the
>> correct nr of lines
>> [22:37] <@jcorvel> 2. have some way for a diff chunk in that chain to
>> indicate "until the end", and make svn_diff_file_output_merge2 cope
>> with that
>> [22:37] <@jcorvel> that's all I can think of right now
>>
>> Any opinions on which solution I should pursue? For now, I'm looking
>> at how difficult 2. would be. But if it takes too long, maybe I should
>> simple do 0. to eliminate potential wc corruption for people working
>> with trunk svn ...
>
> I'd suggest commit something for approach 0 now (but don't remove lots
> of code, a simple #ifdef or some other way of avoiding to call the code
> is fine). And then look into 1 or 2 :)
Ok, done: r1068613
That takes the pressure off a bit. Though I really wouldn't want to
lose that half of the optimization :-(, so I'll continue working on a
better fix ...
--
Johan
