On 31. 3. 26 20:33, Nathan Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 2:02 PM Timofei Zhakov <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 7:12 PM Daniel Sahlberg
<[email protected]> wrote:
Den tis 31 mars 2026 kl 18:03 skrev Timofei Zhakov
<[email protected]>:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 5:47 PM Branko Čibej
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 31. 3. 26 17:44, Timofei Zhakov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 5:40 PM Branko Čibej
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 30. 3. 26 21:59, Timofei Zhakov wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> The problem I would like to address is that actions like
picking the right
> branch in a repository are sometimes annoying with the
current UI of the
> command-line. Although all operations are really
well-designed, the user still
> needs to manually input the whole URL of a branch/or use
the relative path
> syntax.
>
> There is not enough user feedback. When interacting with
a repository through
> the CLI it feels like some abstract thing that exists
somewhere on the remote
> target - not a file-system tree. The current way we
usually do that is one of
> the following:
>
> 1. Imagine what we have on the server in our minds. It's
often not that big of
> a deal to type 30 characters when switching/merging
stuff.
>
> 2. Use the web interface (if any).
>
> 3. Use third-party tools like TortoiseSVN Repository
Browser (and the whole
> ecosystem including branch picker in switch/merge
which I believe is almost
> the same thing).
>
> 4. Borrow the right command with the exact path from
another resource (like
> when first time checking out a new project).
>
> The 2 and 3 are not always possible as the standard web
interface is very
> limited in terms of functionality and not always do we
have the pleasure to use
> the GUI apps.
>
> What I believe we need to improve overall workflow with
Subversion is a way to
> browse repositories (without checking it out) directly
in a terminal. Luckily
> because of the way accessing remote targets is designed
in Subversion, it's
> possible to retrieve information of any arbitrary node
without a need to fetch
> it entirely.
>
> I would like to propose introducing a tool for browsing
remote repositories
> (svnbrowse). It will be a TUI (terminal user interface)
like-ish application
> where a user could navigate the repository like in a web
browser.
>
> I have tried to implement it. A patch is attached below.
I generally liked the
> user experience it brings.
>
> There are also a few issues we might face when
implementing this feature;
>
> 1. It currently loads items pretty slowly; Initially I
used the svn_client API.
> However, it creates a new ra_session per each call. I
believe it would
> be better to switch to using svn_ra directly.
>
> 2. We might load the tree recursively for faster
navigation between
> directories. This would also allow fuzzy searching.
But it makes the
> operation unbounded.
>
> 3. Should it work over a working copy or it's a web
browser replacement? Using
> URL from a working copy makes it much more convenient
to use as a user only
> needs to type 'svnbrowse' to get into it.
>
> 4. The revision issue; What revision do we use? If
implementing it like in the
> rest of the commands (with --revision that defaults
to HEAD), how often
> should we resolve it? The RA API (and the protocol)
also allows fetching the
> contents of the HEAD directory (using svn_ra_get_dir2
with
> SVN_INVALID_REVNUM revision). However, there is no
way to get the revnum
> back (without making an extra request).
>
> 5. Should it be a separate program or something like an
option in
> 'svn list --please-let-me-browse-it'. I personally
think that it should not
> be in 'svn' command. By conceptual conventions of
'svn' there are minimal
> interactions and it can be used for scripting as
well. I believe it would be
> much better to separate it into a different program.
>
> 6. I suggest limiting the scope to directory browsing as
it's the simplest to
> implement but it improves the experience by a lot.
Later on, adding file
> content browsing and log would be natural. Also it
may act as an
> alternative to svnmucc if a commit operation was
implemented.
>
> 7. Do we use ncurses (library that the majority of TUI
apps use) or figure out
> something else?
>
> This list is not complete and I may have missed
something; To conclude, there
> are plenty of things to be done and many problems with
on obvious solution.
> Better we try something out and get some feedback and
vision of what is to be
> improved. The prototype represents the general wireframe
of what it should
> like. I made it in like an hour to get an overall
impression.
>
> Please feel free to express your opinion about this
idea. Dear svndev, it's
> time to discuss some UI things >-<
>
>
> So, if I'm reading this correctly, you're basically
proposing a nicer interface for svnmucc? Or just the
read-only part of it?
>
> I'm suggesting to start with a read-only browser with an
opportunity
> to implement a nicer interface for svnmucc in future.
>
> But I think the primary focus of the minimal-working
prototype is the
> read-only part.
>
>
> Ack. Sounds nice. In return, I propose not doing this in
C but in Python, preferably 3.10+. We have the bindings,
and this is what Python is really good at if used correctly.
I personally think that using anything besides C could
potentially be
bad for cross-platformability (is this a word?). It's not
guaranteed
that the platform that we are being run on has a Python
interpreter
which is especially common on Windows.
Cross-platformability works for me!
I can't remember if I added Python manually on my main
computer but at least it wasn't a big effort (possibly it is a
Windows Store app). I don't think Python would be a major
blocker for any reasonably modern Windows machine.
I think we should ask ourselves "how do people usually install svn
tools?". I think the most common way it's done on Windows is by
checking the relevant option in TortoiseSVN installer. Is it
really gonna include a Python interpreter into distribution? I
assume it's generally a bad idea.
If it doesn't, then the tools in Python would not work out of the box.
It also requires something like an extra batch file to enable
invocations by typing a direct command (like svnbrowse[.exe|bat])
in a terminal.
I don't think it's worth it.
The rest of the command-line tools don't use Python so why
should svnbrowse.
I don't think this is a good argument. If a certain solution
makes more sense for a particular tool, we should go that way.
Generally, with a good framework, it's not so hard to make
such
applications in C.
Wasn't the a joke about 10 types of people, those who like C
and those who don't? Or maybe that was about something else?
That said - I firmly believe that if this is a scratch for you
to itch, you should select the tool that makes the most sense
to you. If you think C makes the most sense - go for it!
That's a good point, thanks! And not for me only, but for the rest
of us that care also.
--
Timofei Zhakov
I'm also +1 for a svnbrowse utility!
I'm okay with it being implemented in C for reasons that were already
spelled out: consistency with the other svn* binaries, less friction
for developers, packagers, and end users, etc.
The 1.14.x release notes explain [1] that Python isn't required for
Subversion unless someone wants to build Subversion from sources, run
the test suite, or use something that requires the SWIG Python
bindings. Staying consistent with that as it affects our core tools is
a good thing IMHO.
I don't see this as a core tool. *shrug*
