You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by "Robert P. J. Day" <rp...@crashcourse.ca> on 2008/09/13 20:51:33 UTC
book description of mixed revision working copy looks weird
from here,
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.in-action.html, the
list of the four states a file can be in, there's this:
"Unchanged, and out of date
"The file has not been changed in the working directory, but it has
been changed in the repository. The file should eventually be updated
in order to make it current with the latest public revision. An svn
commit of the file will do nothing, and an svn update of the file will
fold the latest changes into your working copy."
i'm hoping i haven't misunderstood things all this time, but to say
something is "out of date" in the above context doesn't necessarily
mean that the file's contents have *changed*, only that it's revision
number in the repository is now larger than the one in the working
copy, no? but that doesn't mean that the file is necessarily
different, although that's the interpretation one might take away from
the above.
rday
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: book description of mixed revision working copy looks weird
Posted by "Robert P. J. Day" <rp...@crashcourse.ca>.
Quoting Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com>:
>
> On Sep 13, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>> from here,
>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.in-action.html,
>> the list of the four states a file can be in, there's this:
>>
>> "Unchanged, and out of date
>>
>> "The file has not been changed in the working directory, but it has
>> been changed in the repository. The file should eventually be
>> updated in order to make it current with the latest public
>> revision. An svn commit of the file will do nothing, and an svn
>> update of the file will fold the latest changes into your working
>> copy."
>>
>> i'm hoping i haven't misunderstood things all this time, but to
>> say something is "out of date" in the above context doesn't
>> necessarily mean that the file's contents have *changed*, only that
>> it's revision number in the repository is now larger than the one
>> in the working copy, no? but that doesn't mean that the file is
>> necessarily different, although that's the interpretation one might
>> take away from the above.
>
> No no, I think this part is describing a situation where the file in
> the working copy and the file in the repository do in fact differ. An
> "svn commit" will do nothing (because Subversion will display and error
> that your file is out of date and you must "svn update" first), and an
> "svn update" will download the necessary changes from the repository to
> bring your working copy up to date with the latest revision so that you
> can commit.
>
> In contrast, if the file in the working copy and the file in the
> repository are the same, but the repository merely has a higher
> revision than your working copy, then the file is not out of date; it
> is up to date. The would be the first described state, "Unchanged, and
> current".
ok, i'm good with that, thanks.
rday
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: book description of mixed revision working copy looks weird
Posted by Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com>.
On Sep 13, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> from here, http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.in-
> action.html, the list of the four states a file can be in, there's
> this:
>
> "Unchanged, and out of date
>
> "The file has not been changed in the working directory, but it has
> been changed in the repository. The file should eventually be
> updated in order to make it current with the latest public
> revision. An svn commit of the file will do nothing, and an svn
> update of the file will fold the latest changes into your working
> copy."
>
> i'm hoping i haven't misunderstood things all this time, but to
> say something is "out of date" in the above context doesn't
> necessarily mean that the file's contents have *changed*, only that
> it's revision number in the repository is now larger than the one
> in the working copy, no? but that doesn't mean that the file is
> necessarily different, although that's the interpretation one might
> take away from the above.
No no, I think this part is describing a situation where the file in
the working copy and the file in the repository do in fact differ. An
"svn commit" will do nothing (because Subversion will display and
error that your file is out of date and you must "svn update" first),
and an "svn update" will download the necessary changes from the
repository to bring your working copy up to date with the latest
revision so that you can commit.
In contrast, if the file in the working copy and the file in the
repository are the same, but the repository merely has a higher
revision than your working copy, then the file is not out of date; it
is up to date. The would be the first described state, "Unchanged,
and current".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org