[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [Subclipse-users] does subclipse send the wrong update command or is this just how svn works? (own commit overwritten and then i can update it back in)

From: jcompagner <jcompagner_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:23:34 +0100

no svn shouldnt update to head
SVN should update to the revision i tell him to (in my example 30052)
But it should overwrite files that i committed myself somewhere in the
same project that is committed as 30054

So what really happens is that my committed file of revision 30054 is
replaced with a completely other revision (not even 30052 because that
file isnt in that commit, but it was replaced with revision 30000 of
that file)

And what i really want in the synchronize view update

"update C:/workspace_trunk/j2db_server -r 30052 --force"

i really want to get only the files that are really in THAT revision
and nothing more..

If that did contain my file that i committed then i couldnt commit it
anyway because then i had a update conflict and i had to update first
before i could commit.


On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 14:09, Andreas Haferburg
<haferbur_at_inf.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On 12/1/2010 11:30 AM, jcompagner wrote:
>> Then i did a synchronize (or maybe that was done earlier) and i
>> started updating incoming changes
>> now subclipse sends the command:
> I don't know if I understand correctly, but I think you're saying that you
> did an update from within the Synchronize view, and got a different revision
> than what you expected.
> Please note that the Synchronize view does not have an "Update to HEAD"
> action, but just "Update". When you synchronize with the repository, it
> synchronizes with whatever revision HEAD points to at that time, which
> apparently was 30052 in your case. You then committed, which made HEAD point
> to 30054. But if you update from within the Synchronize view, it updates to
> whatever you synchronized with, which is 30052.
> Just yesterday I stumbled upon that and realized that that's a very useful
> feature of Subclipse. Let's say you synchronize, go through all the changes
> one by one, then finally decide that you can safely update. In the meantime,
> someone else commits something that would conflict with your local changes.
> Would you really want Subclipse to update to HEAD in this case? I sure
> don't.
> Cheers
> Andreas


To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subclipse.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-12-01 14:24:07 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subclipse Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.