Re: Unexpected output from "svn log"

kfogel@collab.net wrote:

>"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
>
>
>>Sorry, Karl, you're absolutely wrong on this. Yes, for a URL, HEAD is
>>chosen, but for a working copy path, it's BASE.
>>
>>
>
>Uh, I did test this before I ran it.
>
>I ran 'svn log' in a working copy, and it generated a log to r7646,
>yet no item in the working copy was higher than r7628.
>
>If 'svn log' expands, via the implicit-dot rule, to 'svn log .', then
>I was running it on a working copy path, and getting HEAD not BASE.
>
>Like I said in my original mail to Brane, "try it" :-).
>
>
Yes, I did try it with a svn compiled from version 7646, and the log was
_not_ anchored at HEAD, but at BASE. It makes me wonder which version
you're using.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org