Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-03-03 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> Julian Foad wrote: >>> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: Julian Foad wrote: >  -- a quick optimization API -- the definitely/maybe question -- like the >  existing implementations but documented properly and named >appropriately; and > >

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-28 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann < stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Julian Foad > wrote: > >> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> > Julian Foad wrote: >> >> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >>> >>> >> or something very much like that. Those assumptions look lik

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-23 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > > Julian Foad wrote: > >> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > >>> r1568600 uncovered an inconsistency in our API usage / interpretation > >>> making blame -g tests fail for FSX. > >>> > >>> The starting point is svn_fs_contents_ch

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-21 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: >> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >>> r1568600 uncovered an inconsistency in our API usage / interpretation >>> making blame -g tests fail for FSX. >>> >>> The starting point is svn_fs_contents_changed and svn_fs_props_changed. >>> FSFS and probably BDB implement

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-19 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Bert Huijben wrote: > Hi, > > > > I don't believe the -g implementation really works... It is a nice proof of > concept, but it doesn't handle many merge scenarios. (It only works if you > assume branches that are kept closely in sync). > That's

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-19 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > > r1568600 uncovered an inconsistency in our API usage / interpretation > > making blame -g tests fail for FSX. > > > > The starting point is svn_fs_contents_changed and svn_fs_props_changed. > > FSFS and probably BDB

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-17 Thread Julian Foad
A couple of clarifications. Julian Foad wrote: > And note that the doc string for svn_ra_get_file_revs2() explicitly says > these > false positives can be returned. In fact it's not explicit, but it directs the reader to see svn_fs_history_prev() for a definition of "interesting revisions", an

Re: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-17 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > r1568600 uncovered an inconsistency in our API usage / interpretation > making blame -g tests fail for FSX. > > The starting point is svn_fs_contents_changed and svn_fs_props_changed. > FSFS and probably BDB implement those as "has there been an intermittent > change?" E.g

RE: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-16 Thread Bert Huijben
uhrm...@wandisco.com] Sent: zaterdag 15 februari 2014 21:14 To: Subversion Development Subject: svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API Hi there, r1568600 uncovered an inconsistency in our API usage / interpretation making blame -g tests fail for FSX. The starting point is svn_fs_contents_cha

svn_ra_get_file_revs2 vs. blame vs. FS API

2014-02-15 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
Hi there, r1568600 uncovered an inconsistency in our API usage / interpretation making blame -g tests fail for FSX. The starting point is svn_fs_contents_changed and svn_fs_props_changed. FSFS and probably BDB implement those as "has there been an intermittent change?" E.g. if the result of some