On 12/11/07, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. What? We version directories too. We don't do svn log for each file in the directory when you request a path. We look at the history of the path, follow renames, etc. When you change foo/bar/fred.c, we consider it a change to foo/bar and foo/, and thus, they have new versions. I'm not sure where you get this crazy notion that we do anything with files when you ask about directories. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
