Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Brock Janiczak wrote:
>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> I think that svn ls always contacts the server. If you provide a WC
>> to the
>> command, it only uses the WC to obtain the URL and revision.
>> hmm, that is a real shame. I don't relly understand why some
>> commands contact the server while others don't. This one could
>> easily use the WC to get the list.
> Not at all, that would be completely incorrect.
> The purpose of 'svn ls' is to *browse the repository*, just as Mark
> said. It's not for listing the contents of a WC. 'ls' already does
> that. 'svn ls' *always* shows a repository listing. It's like the
> TortoiseSVN 'repos browser' feature.
> We could have have made 'svn ls WC' throw an error... perhaps that
> would clear the confusion. But instead we went for consistency. Just
> like every svn subcommand which requires a URL (like 'svn log', for
> example), if you run the 'ls' command on a WC, it will use the WC's
> URL and revision.
> Finally, keep in mind that 'svn ls -r REV-of-WC URL-of-WC' (which is
> what the command is doing) is *not* the same as just listing the
> contents of the working copy! Working copies are often mixed
> revisions, and have extra entries or are missing entries.
> If you're trying to get a listing of the working copy, use 'ls' or
> equivalent. If you want to get a 'versioned' listing of the working
> copy, use 'svn status [-v]'.
Cool, thanks for the detailed explanation.
I am quite happy to use status to get a versioned listing. I have
already tested this and it and it works perfectly (and is much faster).
again, thanks for the info.
Received on Sun Feb 6 10:34:08 2005