On 6-Jun-07, at 1:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Toby Thain wrote:
>> ... after committing r12 from this working copy (Subclipse), I tried:
>> $ svn ls -v
>> 2 emil 17987 Jun 02 12:41 GPL
>> 11 emil 1136 Jun 05 19:00 Makefile
>> 11 emil 1616 Jun 05 19:00 README
>> 11 emil 2293 Jun 05 19:00 addr_calc.c
>> 11 emil 5406 Jun 05 19:00 disasm.c
>> 11 emil 6359 Jun 05 19:00 emul.c
>> 11 emil 4718 Jun 05 19:00 in_out.c
>> 11 emil 3046 Jun 05 19:00 loader.c
>> 11 emil 1814 Jun 05 19:00 reg_flags.h
>> 11 emil 1163 Jun 05 19:00 version.h
>> I was surprised that none of the files updated in r12 were marked
>> as such, so I did:
>> $ svn up
>> At revision 12.
>> Then 'ls' showed what I expected:
>> $ svn ls -v
>> 2 emil 17987 Jun 02 12:41 GPL
>> 12 toby 1140 Jun 05 20:40 Makefile
>> 11 emil 1616 Jun 05 19:00 README
>> 11 emil 2293 Jun 05 19:00 addr_calc.c
>> 11 emil 5406 Jun 05 19:00 disasm.c
>> 12 toby 6345 Jun 05 20:40 emul.c
>> 12 toby 4786 Jun 05 20:40 in_out.c
>> 12 toby 3128 Jun 05 20:40 loader.c
>> 11 emil 1814 Jun 05 19:00 reg_flags.h
>> 11 emil 1163 Jun 05 19:00 version.h
>> Is this normal behaviour?
>
> Yes, you never pull updates down from the server for files that
> were not committed.
I realise; but this doesn't explain to me the behaviour above. The 4
files comprising r12 were *just committed* in this same working copy,
and I don't understand why 'svn ls' did not reflect that.
--Toby
>
> See the mixed revision working copy portion of the Svn boko.
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.2/svn.basic.in-
> action.html#svn.basic.in-action.mixedrevs
>
> Regards,
> Blair
>
> --
> Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
> Subversion training, consulting and support
> http://www.orcaware.com/svn/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subclipse.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 6 19:06:58 2007