John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> writes:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 23:54, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> [...]
> > ### Now, oops! I removed A/D/H (at revision 1, remember) from disk
> > $ rm -rf A/D/H
> >
> > ### Now I run status.
> > $ svn st -u A/D/H
> > * A/D/H/psi
> > ! * ? A/D/H
> > Status against revision: 2
> >
> > Now, the first thing to notice is that only H is reported as missing.
> > Why? Because this is the only thing we actually know about that is
> > missing. There is *no record* in the working copy that we had H at
> > revision 1 before its untimely demise. It could have been at any
> > revision. If this display showed chi and omega as missing, well that
> > would just be wrong, because they weren't supposed to be in the
> > working copy.
>
> Sorry for jumping in, but I saw something that I didn't understand. You
> removed the A/D/H directory completely... so why does your 'svn st -u A/D/H'
> command show A/D/H/psi as *not* missing?
If H is missing from disk (and therefore, with it, it's .svn/ admin
subdir and all information housed therein), we have no idea what
version H was at (since that's stored in H/.svn/entries, now missing)
and what children it had (also stored in the missing entries file).
>
> > So, what does 'svn status -u' really mean? It means, quite literally,
> > show me the union of a) my working copy status and b) what I would
> > see modified if I ran 'svn update' right now. And indeed, this is
> > what I see. Running just 'svn status A/D/H' shows just this missing
> > A/D/H:
> >
> > $ svn st A/D/H
> > ! A/D/H
> >
> > And what would get touched if I updated right now? Well, let's see:
> >
> > $ svn up A/D/H
> > A A/D/H
> > A A/D/H/psi
> > Updated to revision 2.
> >
> > As you can see, the union of these two operations is exactly what 'svn
> > st -u A/D/H' shows.
>
> Here the update command added both A/D/H and A/D/H/psi. I would've expected
> that either the 'svn st -u' command would've shown both as missing or only
> A/D/H as missing and not even mention A/D/H/psi. Considering the fact that
> you said it was the union of a) and b), I would expect both to be listed as
> missing.
>
> Am I missing something here too? :-)
Yup. The point, I'm sorry to say. :-)
"Missing" means "I *know* I'm supposed to have this in my working
copy, but for some reason I don't." psi doesn't meet the criteria
here, because we *don't* know that we're supposed to have it -- we
have absolutely no client-side record of it ever existing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 9 14:24:10 2003