Re: log <wc> vs log <url>

"Rob Oxspring" <roxspring@imapmail.org> writes:

> 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.

Anytime you run 'svn log WCPATH', that gets translated under-the-hood into
'svn log -rBASE url-of-WCPATH'. So the state of your working copy (as
far as what revision of the target you have) definitely does play a
role in how 'svn log' works.

> 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.

Log is always recursive. I wonder what distinctions you were seeing
between the WCPATH and URL versions of the commandline... ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 16 16:16:16 2003