[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Missing log info (WAS: getting a repository's latest revisio n)

From: Scott Palmer <scott.palmer_at_2connected.org>
Date: 2004-10-12 17:28:25 CEST

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commit, doesn't subversion complain that my BASE is out of date?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
Received on Tue Oct 12 17:29:02 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.