Karl Fogel wrote:
> Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi> writes:
> And also:
>> 1) If there are no changes, you only see the "Head revision" - so I
>> do not know if there are any new revisions in the repository.
>>
>> 2) It takes an awfully lot more CPU time and goes through files,
>> compared to 'svn up' - or 'svn st -v README'.
>
> There's no way to avoid (2) and get what you want, I think. In
> order to know if the repository has newer things than your working
> copy, svn has to know what's in your working copy.
>
> Try "svn st -nu", maybe?
Well that works quite fast ofcourse - but that brings me back to the
same problem - I only see the new revision, not the revision that my
wc is currently at. That is assuming ofcourse nothing changed under
the current working directory.
>> Actually, I'm not so sure as to what I really want - maybe I need
>> to go into that further before I do anything. If the above case is
>> solved, then it's just a gut feeling that I want to be notified
>> when something changes even in the svn internals in the working
>> copy - as opposed to a real no-op which happens when there were no
>> new revisions.
>
> I don't know if there's a good solution here.
>
> In general, svn probably can't provide a single command for every
> use case.
Of course.
> Most people just run "svn up" whenever they're wondering what's
> happened lately, I guess (if they're not already watching commit
> mails).
Well that is exactly what I do, in the end. And the only thing running
'svn up' is lacking right now, for me, is that it would give some sort
of a clue that the revision number got bumped, even though there were
no changes to the directory you ran 'svn up' in.
-- Naked
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 8 00:40:41 2002