On 9/23/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "Joe Swatosh" <joe.swatosh@gmail.com> writes:
> > I think I knew that. What was surprising was that the 'svn commit wc' above
> > didn't make the 'wc' be at revision 2. If I had done 'svn commit
> > wc\t.txt' I would
> > have expected (at least not questioned) the behavior I got.
>
> You mean this part?
>
> D:\SVN\r26758>svn add wc\t.txt
> A wc\t.txt
>
> D:\SVN\r26758>svn commit wc -m ""
> Adding wc\t.txt
> Transmitting file data .
> Committed revision 2.
>
> No, that doesn't bump 'wc' itself to r2. Since the only change in the
> working copy is the addition of 't.txt', the commit command would have
> the same effect whether you ran
>
> svn commit wc -m ""
>
> or
>
> svn commit wc\t.txt -m ""
>
> In the first instance, Subversion would crawl the working copy to
> detect changes, see that t.txt has been added, see no other changes,
> and therefore commit the addition of t.txt. In the second case,
> Subversion wouldn't crawl, it would just establish that the named
> target had been changed (which indeed it had -- it was added), and
> commit the change: again, the addition of t.txt.
>
> Neither scenario is a commit of the directory 'wc', and neither will
> increment the revision of 'wc' itself. Try it, and take a look at
> .svn/entries afterwards to see.
>
> HTH,
> -Karl
>
That was indeed the part. Thanks for the explanation, it helped a lot.
Any progress on the Ruby bindings portion of the question? :-)
--
Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Sep 24 03:04:11 2007