Re: Blame improvements - line range; deleted lines [was: svn commit: r1491445 ...]
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > What about an optional output mode that prints the gaps only, but all of > them? > > e.g., if I do 'blame -r 25:29', the optional output mode would print all > lines added in r26 or in r27 or in r28 that are not present in r29, and > only them. Isn't that what diff does?
Re: Blame improvements - line range; deleted lines [was: svn commit: r1491445 ...]
Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 16:41:59 +0100: > Prabhu wrote: > > > On 06/12/2013 05:55 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > >> I have thought before that it would sometimes be useful to include blame > >> information on the gaps between lines. For each gap between adjacent > >> lines (and > >> before the first and after the last line), there is a revision in which > >> any text > >> between these two lines was deleted. > >> > >> Example: blame -r1:30 foo.c@30 could produce these (revnum | line-text) > >> pairs: > >> r20 | "int main()" > >> r20 | "{" > >> r25 | NULL > >> r30 | " return 0;" > >> r20 | "}" > >> > >> where NULL means some line(s) were at this position in r24 but nothing > >> was > >> here in r25 up to the revision being blamed. > > > > How would we handle/show if the line existed in 24r but not in r25.. > > Again existed in r27 and removed in r29 ? I can't think of the UI... > > Blame is only intended to identify the most recent change to each line. In > this case, we would identify the most recent change of the inter-line gap, so > that would be r29. I think that is useful and consistent with the way Blame > works already. > > As a different example, if there were two lines in that "gap" in r24, and one > of them was removed in r25, and the second one was removed in r29, then again > we'd only show "r29" for the gap, because that is the most recent change in > that gap. What about an optional output mode that prints the gaps only, but all of them? e.g., if I do 'blame -r 25:29', the optional output mode would print all lines added in r26 or in r27 or in r28 that are not present in r29, and only them.
Re: Blame improvements - line range; deleted lines [was: svn commit: r1491445 ...]
Prabhu wrote: > On 06/12/2013 05:55 PM, Julian Foad wrote: >> I have thought before that it would sometimes be useful to include blame >> information on the gaps between lines. For each gap between adjacent lines >> (and >> before the first and after the last line), there is a revision in which any >> text >> between these two lines was deleted. >> >> Example: blame -r1:30 foo.c@30 could produce these (revnum | line-text) >> pairs: >> r20 | "int main()" >> r20 | "{" >> r25 | NULL >> r30 | " return 0;" >> r20 | "}" >> >> where NULL means some line(s) were at this position in r24 but nothing was >> here in r25 up to the revision being blamed. > > How would we handle/show if the line existed in 24r but not in r25.. > Again existed in r27 and removed in r29 ? I can't think of the UI... Blame is only intended to identify the most recent change to each line. In this case, we would identify the most recent change of the inter-line gap, so that would be r29. I think that is useful and consistent with the way Blame works already. As a different example, if there were two lines in that "gap" in r24, and one of them was removed in r25, and the second one was removed in r29, then again we'd only show "r29" for the gap, because that is the most recent change in that gap. - Julian
Re: Blame improvements - line range; deleted lines [was: svn commit: r1491445 ...]
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Markus Schaber wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:38:48PM -, danie...@apache.org wrote: >>> It would have been easy to find what revision removed the line break if we >>> had a reverse blame --- that is, a blame that walks the chain of diffs from >>> newerto older, rather than from older to newer. >> >> +1 >> >>> While we're talking about blame improvements, another one is blame a line >>> range: stop as soon as every line in a given [X, Y] range is accounted for >>> (use-case: svn blame | grep -5 '/line I am looking at/'). Bert says that >>> stop as soon as "at least one" line in a given range would be useful for >>> him (use-case: "which revision last changed [this function definition]?") >>> and suggests that API users would find a callback that allows them to decide >>> when to stop gathering further blame information. >> >> Agreed. >> >> May be this way also allows to do queries for deleted lines by making the >> callback stop when he finds a deleted line in a given range. > > I have thought before that it would sometimes be useful to include blame > information on the gaps between lines. For each gap between adjacent lines > (and before the first and after the last line), there is a revision in which > any text between these two lines was deleted. > > Example: blame -r1:30 foo.c@30 could produce these (revnum | line-text) pairs: > r20 | "int main()" > r20 | "{" > r25 | NULL > r30 | "return 0;" > r20 | "}" > > where NULL means some line(s) were at this position in r24 but nothing was > here in r25 up to the revision being blamed. > I'm not sure about your idea, Julian (still have to wrap my head around it), but I'll try to give some more context about Daniel's suggestion: Just to clarify: there are now two notions of "reverse blame". 1) Give me normal blame output (i.e. "show me the lines of the working file (or the youngest file in the given revision range), and show me at each line the revnumber where it was last added"), *but* do it walking the history backwards. So the output should be exactly the same as "normal blame" (no visible effect for the user), but we optimize the algorithm, and (possibly) have the ability to give partial information to the user early (e.g. a GUI could gradually show the revnumbers next to the lines, as they come in, calculated by the "backwards walking" algorithm). Also, we'd have the ability to stop the calculation early, if all the lines have been "blamed". 2) Give me "reverse blame" output, meaning: show me lines of the oldest file in the given revision range, and show me at each line the revnumber where the line was last present. That allows you to see where a line was deleted. So in this case the user is actually asking the reverse question (it's like you change the direction of the time arrow, and then request a "normal blame"). Perhaps 1 should grow another name, like "backward walking blame algorithm" or It's really an implementation detail, most users will be unaware of it. It'll be important for API users though (at least if we want to expose the partial information stuff). The two notions are perfectly orthogonal. The "algorithm reversion" can also be applied to the "reverse blame". -- Johan
Re: Blame improvements - line range; deleted lines [was: svn commit: r1491445 ...]
On 06/12/2013 05:55 PM, Julian Foad wrote: Markus Schaber wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:38:48PM -, danie...@apache.org wrote: It would have been easy to find what revision removed the line break if we had a reverse blame --- that is, a blame that walks the chain of diffs from newerto older, rather than from older to newer. +1 While we're talking about blame improvements, another one is blame a line range: stop as soon as every line in a given [X, Y] range is accounted for (use-case: svn blame | grep -5 '/line I am looking at/'). Bert says that stop as soon as "at least one" line in a given range would be useful for him (use-case: "which revision last changed [this function definition]?") and suggests that API users would find a callback that allows them to decide when to stop gathering further blame information. Agreed. May be this way also allows to do queries for deleted lines by making the callback stop when he finds a deleted line in a given range. I have thought before that it would sometimes be useful to include blame information on the gaps between lines. For each gap between adjacent lines (and before the first and after the last line), there is a revision in which any text between these two lines was deleted. Example: blame -r1:30 foo.c@30 could produce these (revnum | line-text) pairs: r20 | "int main()" r20 | "{" r25 | NULL r30 | "return 0;" r20 | "}" where NULL means some line(s) were at this position in r24 but nothing was here in r25 up to the revision being blamed. - Julian How would we handle/show if the line existed in 24r but not in r25.. Again existed in r27 and removed in r29 ? I can't think of the UI... --Prabhu