Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-subversion-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A9F5B352 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71612 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2012 14:44:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-dev-archive@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 71559 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2012 14:44:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 71552 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2012 14:44:20 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:44:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.83.43] (HELO mail-ee0-f43.google.com) (74.125.83.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:44:13 +0000 Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so19689687eek.16 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 06:43:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.99.197 with SMTP id x45mr23094010eef.114.1325688230034; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 06:43:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from zulu.projectwbs.com (termotehnika-shdsl.amis.net. [90.157.215.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 76sm220375116eeh.0.2012.01.04.06.43.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 06:43:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F0465A1.2050906@apache.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:43:45 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: format of svn:author References: <20111230193655.GA2910@lp-shahaf.local> <4EFE63EA.7030302@mark.mielke.cc> <20111231023547.GA22418@daniel3.local> <4EFEA4EC.6050406@mark.mielke.cc> <20120101022113.GA1725@daniel3.local> <4F001F05.4070407@mark.mielke.cc> <20120102075208.GA10330@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <4F016C1C.3020400@mark.mielke.cc> <4F026FC4.1090200@web.de> <4F03145F.9010608@apache.org> <20120104100948.GF8604@xvii.vinc17.org> <4F042B6A.2060706@apache.org> <4F044AFE.1030600@mark.mielke.cc> In-Reply-To: <4F044AFE.1030600@mark.mielke.cc> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAADBQTFRF IhsbCy0qZjoVOVRoeFxSAIKBzXQiAKaibYiewnk7nn9z0qCTgL3i87Ep6Kx/+tHBsrE+zgAAAjZJ REFUOMvF0jFoE1EYB/CzjWlqIzaTjqVIBifRRWyG0t5iUqlLyFpCeXBgKg5yq6A4degUDJjoUDpc 1Qt4Ux94B11SOLB0KGS4discpbkORTCn9/m9d3fvLhXnvuHu3f+Xx/veyyfZfLSdZHzgicSfeyw4 JISwdz8FT6M8lM8Ceg385Dlhs+cC9sQCDn0B78QCogzwN+sxfHGOIXBbRGkNAM4cZymGtgNsDPgz cByxon3EEm1TLmvAlghoHOO3CZSa+IQ/vF6JV8tgKOMow78gRgL2/+EIvATOUtB3SSdMg4GXgrbn uk0uLiGdoCHKbX4E+t1FUTqn1AtIdPJebssDQ64YANSQyyaQNyUOFs0ijMsMFnOPTahPLXKYowtY 08MfCP7vR7hRnc5zmPK7CDYYbHcbC7tHuyFA94U/1LYZaJpu/sxACHMwvwZljTLY0TbNk4x+zuEt yC3MfCM6uSIvfwur0itFL4FA2Yal8BzLfnYV4EIGwEPAk7o5zIcnvzHMEjwJrrhAKK7on6IrsfRJ 7A53BhaK+CL7fj6+q/sPeOvcDTtoZTxpUYsFeIknrOXep3p3l7Ua+8sZ5FPQKyKwWi+DfROTU7ny C1/9UhpeY7K287WJCzbsNPQm2S6Yk4PSCNhWM2r3nD0K9liYb6yPgCRJhSzPrxUK0yUBVk1VX0lj s7MzGZyp0wImMK/e8rHbz2soL+O+2r1dxfGsAmBcx0lNjS/RUhlUC7gRn1wGMdQ7Vw1/AReW/RN3 xFWdAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04.01.2012 13:50, Mark Mielke wrote: > Branko: If "svn log", "svn blame", and anything like TortoiseSVN or > Subclipse were to support this, you might have a point. As it is, > anybody with teams large enough such that the unique identifier is not > recognizable (i.e. committer A immediately recognizes and knows that > unique identifier for committer B) needs to FUDGE svn:author to > include additional information which is not really part of the unique > identifier at all and is only a humanly representable version of the > unique identifier, and this leads to: > > 1) Breakage in other tools. Committer mappings don't work. > 2) The unique identifier is now not correct as it includes non-unique, > non-permanent details that change. I understand all this, but how do you propose that, e.g., "svn blame" would guess /which/ of the alternative identification tokens it's supposed to show? If you don't want to always show the unique ID, then obviously you'd choose one of the alternatives based on ... what? The identity of the invoker of the command? Some other criterion? Things quickly become horribly hairy. Without specific use cases and examples, it's hard to come up with any kind of coherent identification scheme that's different from what we have now. -- Brane