On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:24:54PM +0000, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/11/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > > > > > I've seen you pointing this kind of examples many times, but is that > > > really different from what even SVN does? "svn log drivers/char" will > > > also list atomic commits, and give me a filtered view of the global > > > log. > > > > Ok, BK and CVS both got this horribly wrong, which is why I care. Maybe > > this is one of the things SVN gets right. > > > > I seriously doubt it, though. Do you get *history* right, or do you just > > get a random list of commits? > > No, it will get actual history (IE not just things that happen to have > that path in the repository) OTOH svn has the result right, but the way it does that is horrible. When you svn log some/path, I think it just (basically) ask svn log for each file in that directory, and merge the logs together. This is "easy" for svn since it remembers "where this specific file" came from. So for svn it's just a matter of merging the individual files histories together. It may have a more clever implementation, but basically I believe it would be similar to that in the end. Of course, if you do something as stupid as: svn cp Makefile some/path/foo.c # completely rewrite foo.c svn commit then you'll have the history of `Makefile` melded into the some/path/foo.c svn log, which is completely horribly wrong. or if you do (which unlike the previous example isn't silly for so many good reasons): cp bar.c foo.c svn add foo.c svn commit then foo.c won't have bar.c history in its svn log. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp1eUfMAOGuf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
