----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Foad" <julianfoad@btopenworld.com>
To: "Rob Oxspring" <roxspring@imapmail.org>
Cc: <dev@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: log <wc> vs log <url>
> Rob Oxspring wrote:
> > Is there a rationale behind different results for running "svn log"
against
> > a working copy verses the "equivelant" url? I've long been happily
using
> > "svn log ." to find what changes have happened *within* the current
> > directory and have just twigged that instead of that, it's quite
reasonably
> > showing the changes that happened *to* the current directory.
>
> Both forms of "log" are inherently recursive. There is no non-recursive
option.
> The only difference I can think of is that "svn log URL" logs up to the
HEAD
> revision if you don't specify a revision, and "svn log WC-PATH" logs up to
the
> BASE revision of the WC-PATH. Ah, perhaps that's what is catching you: if
you
> have modified stuff inside the WC-PATH but have not done an "svn update"
on
> WC-PATH itself, then the log up to the BASE revision of WC-PATH will not
be
> showing the changes inside the directory because they happened more
recently
> than BASE.
Thanks Julian - you've hit the nail on the head. I hadn't done a full
update for a little while and so, for the directory at least, BASE and HEAD
had drifted enough to confuse me. Obviously I'd agree with Philip that
wc@BASE vs url@HEAD should be made clear in the --help text but I'll leave
it to you guys to figure if/how/where to document it.
Thanks all, keep up the good work,
Rob
>
>
> Try "svn log -rHEAD:1 ."
>
> - Julian
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 16 17:30:18 2003