It was more like:
[sussman@BenBook:~/scratch/wc]$ svn copy search.txt new.txt
A new.txt
[sussman@BenBook:~/scratch/wc]$ svn rm search.txt
D search.txt
[sussman@BenBook:~/scratch/wc]$ svn st
D search.txt
A + new.txt
[sussman@BenBook:~/scratch/wc]$ svn ls
DUTCH
foo/
medievia_commands
parental_history
proofbypoem
search.txt
slouch.z5
slouch1
westcoast.jpg
But a move is supposed to be a copy/delete, so the results are not
surprisingly the same.
Just making sure it was known. I don't really use 'svn ls', but it is
there to be used.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:17:19 -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman@collab.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2004, at 5:13 PM, v4r4n wrote:
>
> > I just copied a file and removed the original (a rename by hand).
> >
> > I typed 'svn status' to confirm what I'd just done:
> >
> > D foo_old_name.c
> > A + foo_new_name.c
> >
> > Then I randomly typed 'svn ls' and noticed that my newly copied file
> > was not listed, but the old one was still there.
> >
>
> Hm, something like this?
>
> [sussman@BenBook:~/scratch/wc]$ svn mv search.txt new.txt
> A new.txt
> D search.txt
> [sussman@BenBook:~/scratch/wc]$ svn st
> D search.txt
> A + new.txt
> [sussman@BenBook:~/scratch/wc]$ svn ls
> DUTCH
> foo/
> medievia_commands
> parental_history
> proofbypoem
> search.txt
> slouch.z5
> slouch1
> westcoast.jpg
>
> I think what's going on here is that 'svn ls' was originally meant to
> be a repository browser -- it only operated on URLs. Then, later on,
> we decided that 'svn ls' on a working-copy path would simply grab the
> underlying URL, and use that. (Which is consistent with other
> commands.)
>
> So 'svn ls' is *always* doing a remote listing.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 23 19:15:07 2004