You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Patrick Smears <pa...@ensoft.co.uk> on 2004/10/12 15:18:50 UTC
Re: Missing log info (WAS: getting a repository's latest revisio
n)
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Scott Palmer wrote:
> >> $ svn up
> >> At revision 112.
Your WC is now at revision 112.
> >> $ svn ci -m "fixed stuff"
> >> Sending Blah/src/something.java
> >> Sending Blah/src/something_else.java
> >> Transmitting file data ..
> >> Committed revision 113.
Confusingly, your WC root is now _still_ at revision 112. This semingly
odd behaviour is explained by the fact that if, say, someone else had got
in before you, and committed a r113 that added files to the root, then
after your commit you wouldn't have those (added) files in your WC - so
the root stays at 112 to remember that there may be things it needs to
pick up. In this case that isn't necessary, but it would be inconsistent
for the behaviour to change in this case.
> >> $ svn log
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >> r111 | scott.palmer | 2004-10-09 01:33:18 -0400 (Sat, 09 Oct 2004) |
> >> 1 line
> >> some comment
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >> r110 | scott.palmer | 2004-10-08 23:52:09 -0400 (Fri, 08 Oct 2004) |
> >> 1 line
> >> some other comment
> >> ...
> >> Notice that rev 112 and rev 113, both of which had log messages (I've
> >> manually replaced the path info and log text for posting) , you can
> >> see that for 113 in the above transcript, do not show up in the log.
r113 doesn't show up because the WC is at r112. Adding "-r HEAD" should
cause it to show up, though.
> >> All of the above commands were from the root of my working copy. All
> >> modifications to the repository were included in that working copy.
> >> That doesn't seem right to me.
If the modifications in r112 are indeed in the WC, that would definitely
seem wrong to me...
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Missing log info (WAS: getting a repository's latest revisio n)
Posted by Scott Palmer <sc...@2connected.org>.
On Oct 12, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Patrick Smears wrote:
> I hope that clears everything up :)
>
It does. Thanks.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Missing log info (WAS: getting a repository's latest revisio
n)
Posted by Patrick Smears <pa...@ensoft.co.uk>.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Scott Palmer wrote:
> > Confusingly, your WC root is now _still_ at revision 112. This semingly
> > odd behaviour is explained by the fact that if, say, someone else had
> > got
> > in before you, and committed a r113 that added files to the root, then
> > after your commit you wouldn't have those (added) files in your WC - so
> > the root stays at 112 to remember that there may be things it needs to
> > pick up. In this case that isn't necessary, but it would be
> > inconsistent
> > for the behaviour to change in this case.
>
> I thought subversion would not allow the commit unless I did an update
> in that case? I.e. if my WC is at 112, someone else commits 113, then I
> try to commit, doesn't subversion complain that my BASE is out of date?
It allows the commit provided that no files or directories that you're
committing have changed in the intervening revisions (since this would
necessitate a merge). Changing the properties on a directory counts as
modifying the directory, but modifying files underneath it doesn't.
I hope that clears everything up :)
Patrick
--
The easy way to type accents in Windows: http://www.frkeys.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Missing log info (WAS: getting a repository's latest revisio n)
Posted by Scott Palmer <sc...@2connected.org>.
On Oct 12, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Patrick Smears wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Scott Palmer wrote:
>
>>>> $ svn up
>>>> At revision 112.
>
> Your WC is now at revision 112.
>
>>>> $ svn ci -m "fixed stuff"
>>>> Sending Blah/src/something.java
>>>> Sending Blah/src/something_else.java
>>>> Transmitting file data ..
>>>> Committed revision 113.
>
> Confusingly, your WC root is now _still_ at revision 112. This semingly
> odd behaviour is explained by the fact that if, say, someone else had
> got
> in before you, and committed a r113 that added files to the root, then
> after your commit you wouldn't have those (added) files in your WC - so
> the root stays at 112 to remember that there may be things it needs to
> pick up. In this case that isn't necessary, but it would be
> inconsistent
> for the behaviour to change in this case.
I thought subversion would not allow the commit unless I did an update
in that case?
I.e. if my WC is at 112, someone else commits 113, then I try to
commit, doesn't subversion complain that my BASE is out of date?
>>>> $ svn log
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> r111 | scott.palmer | 2004-10-09 01:33:18 -0400 (Sat, 09 Oct 2004) |
>>>> 1 line
>>>> some comment
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> r110 | scott.palmer | 2004-10-08 23:52:09 -0400 (Fri, 08 Oct 2004) |
>>>> 1 line
>>>> some other comment
>>>> ...
>>>> Notice that rev 112 and rev 113, both of which had log messages
>>>> (I've
>>>> manually replaced the path info and log text for posting) , you can
>>>> see that for 113 in the above transcript, do not show up in the log.
>
> r113 doesn't show up because the WC is at r112. Adding "-r HEAD" should
> cause it to show up, though.
it does.
>>>> All of the above commands were from the root of my working copy.
>>>> All
>>>> modifications to the repository were included in that working copy.
>>>> That doesn't seem right to me.
>
> If the modifications in r112 are indeed in the WC, that would
> definitely
> seem wrong to me...
>
My mistake, r112 was not in the WC. But you knew that already didn't
you? :)
I think I have things straightened out now.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org