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

Re: svn status 'G'?

From: Paul Burba <PaulB_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2005-05-27 15:52:04 CEST

Thanks all for the thoughts,

I think Blair, Patrick, and Scott are following what's puzzling me, that
is:

  "When would I see a status of 'G' for a WC item?"

I'm going out on a (short :-) limb and saying the answer is "never!", but
I'm open to the possibility there is an unusual set of circumstances which
can produce it...

...so, if anyone has a formula to produce such an outcome I'm curious to
see it. Alternatively, if it's a historical hold-over, plan for the
future, or simply, as Blair speculates, a doc mistake, I'd like to know
that too. Does anyone out there have a semi-definitive answer on this?

Thanks again,
_______________________
Paul Burba

Software Developer
SoftLanding Systems, Inc.

Paul Burba <PaulB@softlanding.com> wrote on 05/26/2005 05:01:18 PM:

> Hello All,
>
> While working on our port of the subversion command line to the IBM
> iSeries I noticed that svn status --help indicates that it's possible
for
> a WC item to have a status of 'G':
>
> svn status --help
> status (stat, st): Print the status of working copy files and
> directories.
> usage: status [PATH...]
>
> With no args, print only locally modified items (no network access).
> With -u, add working revision and server out-of-date information.
> With -v, print full revision information on every item.
>
> The first six columns in the output are each one character wide:
> First column: Says if item was added, deleted, or otherwise
changed
> ' ' no modifications
> 'A' Added
> 'C' Conflicted
> 'D' Deleted
> 'G' Merged
> .
> .
> .
>
> 'G' obviously makes sense as feedback from svn update, but I'm at a loss

> to figure out under what scenario svn status would produce it...any
> thoughts?

Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> wrote on 05/26/2005 07:45:43 PM:

>
> I don't believe you'll see a G from the status command, so I'm wondering

> if this is a docoumentation mistake. Doing what you'd think would show
> a merged file shows M.
>
> $ svn co -r 14800 http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes
> $ cd notes
> $ echo "some change" >> l10n-problems
> $ svn status
> M l10n-problems
> $ svn update
> G l10n-problems
> Updated to revision 14856.
> $ svn status
> M l10n-problems

Patrick Burleson <pburleson@gmail.com> wrote on 05/26/2005 05:42:37 PM:

>
> Is that true in the context of a "svn status". Until you commit, would
> it continue to report that your local changes were merged with changes
> from the server? I guess that would make sense. Just to keep you
> alerted that the file has outside changes in it.
>
> Patrick

Scott Palmer <scott.palmer@2connected.org> wrote on 05/26/2005 06:36:48
PM:

>
> His question pertains to the 'status' command.
>
> Scott

_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 27 15:54:22 2005

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