RE: 'svn up -r0' doesn't.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.martin_at_wandisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 4 juli 2011 13:07
> To: Daniel Shahaf
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 'svn up -r0' doesn't.
> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
> > Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 10:18:49 +0100:
> >> Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> writes:
> >> > I really follow what you are doing, what you expect to happen or what
> >> > did happen. Can you produce a simple recipe?
> >> That should be "I didn't really follow". When I run 'svn up -r0 m' the
> >> target m doesn't appear to exist (because the earlier update failed?)
> >> and I get no conflict, just "At revision 0.".
> > What I do:
> > svn up -r 0 $SUBDIR
> > What happens:
> > after the update, the whole $SUBDIR/** hierarchy is present
> > What I expect to happen:
> > after the update, as I understand your earlier emails,
> > [ `find $SUBDIR | wc -l` -le 2 ]
> > What I did: in the email I wrote 'svn up -r 0 m' (rather than the actual
> > name of that directory) because the infra repository is not public. On
> > my shell session, m/f/h/e/ really was m*/f*/h*/e*/.
> Still not clear. A simple recipe that didn't rely on infra would be
> $ svn up -r0 m
> D m
> Removed external 'm/j/.../e/a'
> Updated to revision 0.
Util my patch in r1142211, I think you would have seen m as tree conflicted
and no removed external as the local edited, remote deleted would have
caused 'm' to have been copied to WORKING.
Received on 2011-07-04 16:47:02 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev