On 21. 5. 26 18:25, Timofei Zhakov wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 3:20 PM Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026, 14:40 Daniel Sahlberg,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Den ons 20 maj 2026 kl 10:55 skrev <[email protected]>:
>
> Author: rinrab
> Date: Wed May 20 08:55:33 2026
> New Revision: 1934426
>
> Log:
> Use UTF-8 alignement for the 'author' column in the 'svn
blame' command.
>
> * subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c
> (#include): Add svn_utf_private.h.
> (print_line_info): Call svn_utf__cstring_utf8_align_right() to
> prepare author.
>
> Modified:Agreed, this is a very breaking/broken
> subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c
>
> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c
>
==============================================================================
> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c Wed May 20
08:30:24 2026 (r1934425)
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/svn/blame-cmd.c Wed May 20
08:55:33 2026 (r1934426)
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>
> /*** Includes. ***/
>
> +#include "private/svn_utf_private.h"
> #include "svn_client.h"
> #include "svn_error.h"
> #include "svn_dirent_uri.h"
> @@ -150,8 +151,9 @@ print_line_info(svn_stream_t *out,
> time_stdout = " -";
> }
>
> - SVN_ERR(svn_stream_printf(out, pool, "%s %10s %s ",
rev_str,
> - author ? author : " -",
> + SVN_ERR(svn_stream_printf(out, pool, "%s %s %s ",
rev_str,
> + svn_utf__cstring_utf8_align_right(
> + author ? author : "-",
10, pool),
> time_stdout));
After this change the output of svn blame is different from
before if
there is a very long author name.
I have tested with svn compiled about a month ago (the version in
$PATH) and from a brand new (in ./subversion/svn). I have
prepared a
repo with a file where all lines are authored by "dsg" and the
remaining by "averylongauthor" (15 characters, ASCII).
This is my commit #2 by the long author:
[[[
dsg@devi-25-01:~/svn_trunk3$ ./subversion/svn/svn proplist -v
--revprop -r2 ../wc/foo
Unversioned properties on revision 2:
svn:author
averylongauthor
svn:date
2026-05-20T11:52:35.534418Z
svn:log
Modify line 4
]]]
Blame before the change above:
[[[
dsg@devi-25-01:~/svn_trunk3$ svn blame ../wc/foo
1 dsg 1
1 dsg 2
1 dsg 3
2 averylonga Line 4
1 dsg 5
1 dsg 6
1 dsg 7
1 dsg 8
1 dsg 9
]]]
Author names are right adjusted but when overflowing, the first 10
characters are displayed.
Blame after the change above:
[[[
dsg@devi-25-01:~/svn_trunk3$ ./subversion/svn/svn blame ../wc/foo
1 dsg 1
1 dsg 2
1 dsg 3
2 longauthor Line 4
1 dsg 5
1 dsg 6
1 dsg 7
1 dsg 8
1 dsg 9
]]]
Author names are right adjusted but when overflowing, the last 10
characters are displayed.
(I'm aware there are more instances of svn_stream_printf and I
haven't
analysed exactly which one is involved here).
I think we need to keep the precision in the formatting string
and use
the _align_left version.
Kind regards,
Daniel
Agreed, this is a very breaking/broken change. Changes that affect
program output need to be discussed on list and tested. This
comment caught my attention:
+ * Please note, there might be a little artifact when there is a
wider
+ * character, then the string won't be perfectly aligned.
If true, it implies that svn_utf8_width() or whatever the function
is called isn't returning correct results.
I can't find the discussion about this now but I'd just note that
calculating the width of a Unicode string by only looking at
individual code points is not correct. Therefore, pruning away
individual code points without context in order to get a shorter
string is not correct, either. Some Unicode glyphs can use up to 5
code points.
-- Brane
Whoever sold us Unicode as a fixed-width encoding was running a
pyramid scheme. 😏
I did NOT mean to intentionally break anything. Please don't say that
a change is fundamentally broken just because you don't like something.
The implementation might've been bad - it's not the idea.
> Changes that affect program output need to be discussed on list and
tested.
I completely disagree. First of all, we live by commit-then-review. Of
course we need to discuss important design decisions that we make.
This is not one of these.
Second, I did not want to change behaviour. This was a mistake that I
made. I did not realise that if you resize a box of UI anywhere else,
the text still stays on the left side, ok? Please don't insult me for
not knowing how to think or whatever that was that you meant.
You need to calm down. And test your changes more thoroughly.
We already had incidents of certain people spoiling features because
of the "wrong discussion and approval" process. I want to avoid them
as much as possible in the future. This really creates a toxic
environment on dev@svn. I encourage that we stay respectful to each
other and keep conversations constructive.
Yes, review is important. But not to the point where we have the least
significant things go through patches. Sometimes you can just do a thing.
By the way, did it ever stop you from breaking the trunk for over 6
months and delaying the release for some extra time and refusing to
revert changes after you were pointed out that it was actually
breaking? I didn't see you reverting that.
Show me where I broke trunk for 6 months and which release I delayed.
Please do. Then tell me again about the toxic environment.
-- Brane
