r73000 MediaWiki - Code Review archive

Repository:MediaWiki
Revision:r72999‎ | r73000 | r73001 >
Date:17:54, 14 September 2010
Author:tparscal
Status:deferred (Comments)
Tags:
Comment:
This work has been integrated and is now completely out of sync.
Modified paths:
  • /branches/resourceloader (deleted) (history)

Diff [purge]

Comments

#Comment by Tim Starling (talk | contribs)   12:12, 17 September 2010

It would have been easier to trace the authorship of changes made before r72349 if you hadn't done that.

#Comment by Trevor Parscal (WMF) (talk | contribs)   17:04, 17 September 2010

I'm sort of unsure what you mean. Just because it's deleted doesn't actually make the revision history die too.. For example, you can easily view the first revision of ResourceLoader.php at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/ResourceLoader.php?revision=68372&view=markup&pathrev=72349

Afaik, you know SVN very well, I must be missing something here.

#Comment by Tim Starling (talk | contribs)   03:21, 18 September 2010

Sure, it's still all there, it's just harder to access, because you have to muck around with path revisions to find the original files. So to trace, say, the changes to OutputPage.php introduced in the branch merge, instead of:

svn annotate branches/resourceloader/phase3/includes/OutputPage.php

one is obliged to work out exactly when that path was deleted, and then to check out a copy of the branch at the preceding path revision:

svn up -r 72999 branches/resourceloader
svn annotate branches/resourceloader/phase3/includes/OutputPage.php

Or alternatively to use a remote path:

svn annotate svn+ssh://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/branches/resourceloader/phase3/includes/OutputPage.php@72999

since annotating a path revision on a deleted working copy path does not work:

tstarling@shimmer:~/src/mediawiki/branches$ svn annotate resourceloader/phase3/includes/OutputPage.php@72999
svn: 'resourceloader/phase3/includes' is not a working copy

It's an unnecessary nuisance: we have lots of branches that are out of sync, it's not a problem to leave them there.

#Comment by Trevor Parscal (WMF) (talk | contribs)   17:32, 20 September 2010

Do we intend to leave all of them there for all of time?

Status & tagging log