You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Rob Hills <ro...@netpaver.com.au> on 2004/10/12 01:58:57 UTC
Re: **** SPAM **** Re: getting a repository's latest revision
Hi All,
On 11 Oct 2004 at 12:24, Lorenz wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:35:49 +0200, "Guido Anzuoni"
> <gu...@kyneste.com> wrote:
>
> >If you issue a
> >svn log -r head URL
> >and URL is a directory it works fine.
> >If URL is a file then the log output is the one you reported.
>
> not quiet correct.
>
> You always will get an empty log message (dashed line only) if the
> target-file or the target-directory (and any of it's subdirectories)
> did not change in the requested revision.
>
> Using the root directory of the repositiory on the other hand should
> always give you a non empty result.
Re: **** SPAM **** Re: getting a repository's latest revision
Posted by Tobias Ringström <to...@ringstrom.mine.nu>.
Rob Hills wrote:
>For now, I'm happy to know that it's already in the issue log
>(http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1959) and I'll await its resolution
>(or try and persuade one of our C++ developers to fix it).
>
>
That issue is for getting the server software version, e.g. 1.1.0, not
the HEAD revision number.
/Tobias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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:
> >> $ 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 revision)
Posted by Scott Palmer <sc...@2connected.org>.
On Oct 12, 2004, at 9:43 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Scott Palmer wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2004, at 9:58 PM, Rob Hills wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> On 11 Oct 2004 at 12:24, Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>>> You always will get an empty log message (dashed line only) if the
>>>> target-file or the target-directory (and any of it's subdirectories)
>>>> did not change in the requested revision.
>>>>
>>>> Using the root directory of the repositiory on the other hand should
>>>> always give you a non empty result.
>>>
>>>
>>> From my testing, that is not correct either. Issuing:
>>> svn log -r head http://our.repos.server/svn/projects/myproject
>>>
>>> (url details changed to protect the guilty ;-)
>>> using a valid URL on our server (that is a directory, not a file)
>>> still returns the empty
>>> list.
>>>
>> I have also observed that svn log -r HEAD always gives an empty list
>> (just the dashed line), at least I have never seen it do anything
>> different. If I issue "svn log" on the root of my working copy it
>> does not include the latest revision or two.
>> Here's an example:
>> $ svn up
>> 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.
>> $ 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.
>> 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.
>
> You will always see some log message if you run 'svn log -rHEAD' on
> the root of you REPOSITORY, not your working copy. Your working copy
> is not necessarily checked out from the top level of the repository
> (in fact it almost certainly isn't), so HEAD of the repository might
> be a change in some other directory.
But in this case HEAD of the repository is most definitely NOT in some
other directory. I made that clear in my transcript (notice the commit
followed immediately by a log, no change directories in-between) and my
description of it when I said, "All modifications to the repository
were included in that working copy".
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 revision)
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
Scott Palmer wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 2004, at 9:58 PM, Rob Hills wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On 11 Oct 2004 at 12:24, Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> You always will get an empty log message (dashed line only) if the
>>> target-file or the target-directory (and any of it's subdirectories)
>>> did not change in the requested revision.
>>>
>>> Using the root directory of the repositiory on the other hand should
>>> always give you a non empty result.
>>
>>
>> From my testing, that is not correct either. Issuing:
>> svn log -r head http://our.repos.server/svn/projects/myproject
>>
>> (url details changed to protect the guilty ;-)
>> using a valid URL on our server (that is a directory, not a file)
>> still returns the empty
>> list.
>>
>
> I have also observed that svn log -r HEAD always gives an empty list
> (just the dashed line), at least I have never seen it do anything
> different. If I issue "svn log" on the root of my working copy it does
> not include the latest revision or two.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> $ svn up
> 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.
>
> $ 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. 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.
You will always see some log message if you run 'svn log -rHEAD' on the
root of you REPOSITORY, not your working copy. Your working copy is not
necessarily checked out from the top level of the repository (in fact it
almost certainly isn't), so HEAD of the repository might be a change in
some other directory.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Missing log info (WAS: getting a repository's latest revision)
Posted by Scott Palmer <sc...@2connected.org>.
On Oct 11, 2004, at 9:58 PM, Rob Hills wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On 11 Oct 2004 at 12:24, Lorenz wrote:
>
>> You always will get an empty log message (dashed line only) if the
>> target-file or the target-directory (and any of it's subdirectories)
>> did not change in the requested revision.
>>
>> Using the root directory of the repositiory on the other hand should
>> always give you a non empty result.
>
> From my testing, that is not correct either. Issuing:
> svn log -r head http://our.repos.server/svn/projects/myproject
>
> (url details changed to protect the guilty ;-)
> using a valid URL on our server (that is a directory, not a file)
> still returns the empty
> list.
>
I have also observed that svn log -r HEAD always gives an empty list
(just the dashed line), at least I have never seen it do anything
different. If I issue "svn log" on the root of my working copy it does
not include the latest revision or two.
Here's an example:
$ svn up
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.
$ 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. 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.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org