Rob Oxspring wrote:
> Is there a rationale behind different results for running "svn log" against
> a working copy verses the "equivelant" url? I've long been happily using
> "svn log ." to find what changes have happened *within* the current
> directory and have just twigged that instead of that, it's quite reasonably
> showing the changes that happened *to* the current directory.
Both forms of "log" are inherently recursive. There is no non-recursive option. The only difference I can think of is that "svn log URL" logs up to the HEAD revision if you don't specify a revision, and "svn log WC-PATH" logs up to the BASE revision of the WC-PATH. Ah, perhaps that's what is catching you: if you have modified stuff inside the WC-PATH but have not done an "svn update" on WC-PATH itself, then the log up to the BASE revision of WC-PATH will not be showing the changes inside the directory because they happened more recently than BASE.
Try "svn log -rHEAD:1 ."
- Julian
>
> I was pretty sure that I'd been able to answer the question in the past so
> figured that I needed to supply the --recursive option, but this isn't
> accepted by the log command. After reading the output of "svn log --help" I
> realised that I needed the url version of the command and now I have the
> information I wanted.
>
> Having got the information out, I'm still a little confused as to the
> reasoning behind the distinction. I would have thought that each should be
> as recursive as the other and that the --recursive / --non-recursive (or in
> future --depth) option should make the difference.
>
> Will add an enhancment request if people think its sensible,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob (starting to ponder whether mixed rev working copies might be part of
> the issue...)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 16 16:05:19 2003