Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Any of the Core Devs feel free to take care of this as I'm out of commission this weekend as posted.

Thanks,

Cookie

I'm marking it as approved as the majority is in agree.

Posted

Yes, now SVN Blame will blame the person who committed the TAB-to-spaces conversion. And when we revert this, SVN Blame will blame that person too! We'll have to do two "Blame previous revision" lookups to find out who actually added/edited a line!

The only way to prevent that is:

  1. undo r16968 by doing SVN Replace on the whole /trunk/src/ (replace it with revision 16967 of /trunk/src)
  2. have everyone re-commit r16969 to r16991 (23 commits)
  3. then do the proper AStyle conversion (4 spaces = 1 tab)
    - this will still cause converted lines to blame the wrong person
    (and when looking up SVN Blame you have to do "Blame previous revision")
    + but at least you only have to do Blame previous revision ONCE
    + and it will only be for the lines that were space-indented, then converted to tabs
    (I'm guessing less than 5% of the code? The majority of it was already indented with TABs prior to r16968.)

I'm FOR doing this.

We replace with the source from r16967, which was actually last-modified in r16966 (doesn't matter much).

Then we could do this:

• Either every one recommit their own commit, so blame will be properly placed which will take more time (depends on that dev's activity) which I strongly recommend we do this, regardless of revision number, at least we'd have blame righty (partially, source-related would be different but still blame the same person).

Also I'd go for keep commit AS IS even if they would be reverted or follow up'd after, for the sake of blame.

• Otherwise we take a single person to recommit everything and even though we'd have less "useless" revisions (or follow ups), blame would be broken. (which I don't like)

And since this code style thing is giving so much trouble (which I thought it wouldn't), personally I don't want this kind of headache anymore, so leave it be.

List of commits envolving source modifications and its authors:

http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16988/rathena - malufett
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16987/rathena - ligtha
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16986/rathena - mkbu95
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16985/rathena - mkbu95
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16984/rathena - markzd
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16981/rathena - malufett
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16980/rathena - markzd
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16979/rathena    - markzd
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16977/rathena - akkarin
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16974/rathena - mkbu95
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16973/rathena - mkbu95
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16971/rathena - mkbu95
http://trac.rathena.org/changeset/16969/rathena - lighta

  • Upvote 2
Posted

Implemented at: 16992

We opted by replacing the src svn with the old version 16966.

And since this code style thing is giving so much trouble (which I thought it wouldn't), personally I don't want this kind of headache anymore, so leave it be.

We agreed.

Posted (edited)
The only way to prevent that is:

  1. undo r16968 by doing SVN Replace on the whole /trunk/src/ (replace it with revision 16967 of /trunk/src)
  2. have everyone re-commit r16969 to r16991 (13 commits to /trunk/src)
  3. then do the proper AStyle conversion (4 spaces = 1 tab)
    - this will still cause converted lines to blame the wrong person
    (and when looking up SVN Blame you have to do "Blame previous revision")
    + but at least you only have to do Blame previous revision ONCE
    + and it will only be for the lines that were space-indented, then converted to tabs
    (I'm guessing less than 5% of the code? The majority of it was already indented with TABs prior to r16968.)

Part 1 is done.

Part 2:

Edited by Brian
  • Upvote 1
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...