Max Bowsher writes:
> Julian Foad wrote:
> > Mathias.Weinert@gfa-net.de wrote:
> >> kfogel@collab.net writes:
> >> > Wouldn't 'svn ls --recursive --verbose' or something like that do
what
> >> > you needed?
> >>
> >> Not exactly:
> >
> >> - 'svn ls' works on working copies resp. repository urls whereas
svnlook
> >> directly works on the repository
> >
> > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "resp." but I think you mean "and
> > not"; but that is not true. "svn ls" also works directly on
repository
> > URLs:
> > svn ls -R http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/www
> > [...]
> > faq.html
> > favicon.ico
> > getting_subversion.html
> > images/
> > images/bsddaemon.png
> > images/debian.jpg
> > [...]
> >
> >> The first two things are not really a problem but the third one seems
to
> >> be a problem for me.
> >
> > Is it still a problem? :-)
>
> Even if it isn't, I'm still feeling inclined to commit the patch.
>
> It's small, neat, and a sensible capability for svnlook to have.
>
> Max.
>
First of all sorry for not recognizing that ommiting '--verbose' solves my
first 'problem'.
And again sorry for generating a little confusion: "resp." was intended to
stand for "respectively".
What I wanted to say was this: 'svn ls' either works on working copies or
on repository urls but not directly on the repository (which means on the
server).
Mathias
Received on Tue Apr 5 13:47:59 2005