You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Jack Repenning <jr...@collab.net> on 2003/10/23 20:27:58 UTC
mixed-rev working copies, yet not?
This seems odd to me, does it make sense? Can someone enlighten me?
I start with a rev 7402 working copy of
http://svn.collab.net/svn/branches/release-0.32.1/. svnversion says
"7402"
I "svn up CHANGES", and see:
D CHANGES
Updated to revision 7506.
Why CHANGES is being deleted, I don't know, but pressing on,
> svnversion .
7502
If part of my wc has been updated to rev 7506, shouldn't this be "7502:7506"?
--
-==-
Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835.8090
f: 650.228.2501
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: mixed-rev working copies, yet not?
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@codematters.co.uk>.
Jack Repenning <jr...@collab.net> writes:
> I "svn up CHANGES", and see:
> D CHANGES
> Updated to revision 7506.
> Why CHANGES is being deleted, I don't know, but pressing on,
>
> > svnversion .
> 7502
>
> If part of my wc has been updated to rev 7506, shouldn't this be "7502:7506"?
Yes, that's a bug. The svn_client_status() function used by
svnversion doesn't return 'deleted' items.
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: mixed-rev working copies, yet not?
Posted by Jack Repenning <jr...@collab.net>.
Ah, wait, I know, I know: I didn't realize all the steps of the
experiment I actually did:
At 1:27 PM -0700 10/23/03, Jack Repenning wrote:
>This seems odd to me, does it make sense? Can someone enlighten me?
>
>I start with a rev 7402 working copy of
>http://svn.collab.net/svn/branches/release-0.32.1/. svnversion says
>"7402"
... and at this point, someone moves branches/release-0.32.1 to
tags/0.32.1, so my WC is no longer pointing to anywhere that exists!
>
>I "svn up CHANGES", and see:
> D CHANGES
> Updated to revision 7506.
>Why CHANGES is being deleted, I don't know, but pressing on,
Well, because, yes, CHANGES is no longer there ... in fact, there's
no "there" there. Seems like this should have said something that
meant "no such location in the repo'" this action suggests someone
consciously removed the CHANGES file itself, but that ain't so.
But even so
> > svnversion .
> 7502
>
>If part of my wc has been updated to rev 7506, shouldn't this be "7502:7506"?
--
-==-
Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835.8090
f: 650.228.2501
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org