GNU bug report logs - #43442
Code stored with Subversion (SVN) cannot be retrieved from SWH

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr>
To: Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>
Cc: 43442 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#43442] Subversion keyword substitution
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:04:55 +0200

Hi,

Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com> skribis:

> Thinking entirely abstractly, the keywords should be expanded.  I’m not
> really long enough in the tooth (old enough) to know how people use
> keywords, but one might be tempted to do something like:
>
>     printf ("This is foo version %s\n", "$Revision$");
>
> If that ever happens, processing the keywords would be very important.

“Very” might be an overstatement.  :-)

In practice, these were typically used in source file headers, so that
if you exported or copied files around (outside version control), they’d
have a timestamp of sorts at the top.

[...]

> It’s not clear to me why SWH passes ‘--ignore-keywords’ to Subversion in
> the first place.  I guess it saves storage, because having identical
> files allows deduplication.

I asked on #swh-devel and the fine folks there hinted at
non-reproducibility.  Looking at
<https://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.advanced.props.special.keywords.html>,
one thing that’s definitely not reproducible is the “local time zone”
bit.  From that perspective it makes a lot of sense to disable keyword
substitution.

>> How frequent is the use of keywords though?
>
> Well, you found 11 in the current Guix, and I see 30 when I process
> everything I have (from version 1.0 to a few weeks ago).  Furthermore,
> the only usage pattern I see is “$Id” in a comment.

Interesting.

>> So, how about applying the ‘--ignore-keywords’ change and updating
>> hashes accordingly?
>
> It’s probably the right default given the circumstances.

OK.  I’ll submit a patch to that effect, unless you beat me at it.  :-)

> It seems like there’s a direct conflict between ease of packaging and
> ease of time travel.  In the hypothetical case that a keyword mattered,
> it would be a nasty surprise to the package author.  They would have to
> (a) discover the problem and (b) manually do the keyword substitution in
> Scheme (or work around it).

My intuition is that the worst “problem” we might have is ‘--version’
showing unexpanded keywords.

[...]

>> We should remove that recursive flag when it has no effect.  Perhaps we
>> could proceed similarly?
>
> Huh.  My scripts tell me that we haven’t needed it at all in the last
> three years.  That’s a suspicious enough result that I wonder if there’s
> a bug in my scripts.  The results are looking good so far, but there are
> a few things I still need to look over.

Looks like it might be easily addressed!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.