On 14.01.2019 15:37, Julian Foad wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 14.01.2019 13:36, Julian Foad wrote: > [...] > > Thanks, Brane; you gave a good initial summary of the scope of the problem. > As you said on IRC there's even more to it, such as the relationship between > line splitting and keywords, meaning that all has to be addressed together. > >>> Can we re-write this properly? >> As I said, this is not limited to blame. The current change in the blame >> API at least makes some sense and is a localised change, that's why I >> support it. It doesn't break anything that wasn't broken before. >> >> Changing the way we handle text-like files for diff, blame and patch, on >> the other hand, is quite a bit more involved and I'm afraid it'll touch >> a lot of code. I wouldn't dream of rejecting svn_client_blame6 just >> because it doesn't solve the larger problem. > Ack. I didn't mean to reject this current upgrade: I agree that providing an > svn_string_t is a useful and self-contained upgrade in itself, and I support > it. I meant can we next, sometime, address the bigger problem that you > discussed above. (We should open an issue in the tracker, and start a new > thread for it.)
+1
