On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 01:26:42AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> 'svn log', with no arguments, runs the command on the '.' directory at
> BASE revision... just like every other svn subcommand. That means
> you're asking to see the history of every commit ever made to the
> working-dir at revision BASE, then going backwards in time from there.
>
> So, if your working copy is all at revision 8, and then you commit a
> change to foo.c, the whole working is *still* at revision 8, and foo.c
> is now at revision 9. If you run 'svn log', you're asking for all
> commits that happened to r8 of the directory. That means you *won't*
> see the r9 commit you just made.
yes, I know how it works. You can claim that it's logically consistent
all you want, but that don't change the fact that I consider it confusing.
When I run "svn log" I'm thinking "give me the logs for the file",
not "give me the logs for some versions of the file". Given that I can't
think of any other revision control software that defines it the way that
subversion does, I feel fairly confident assuming that there are at least
a few other people that define the "log" operation the same way.
Especially if there is still a desire to have svn be similar to cvs,
the differing behavior of the log operation is, in my opinon, a major flaw.
However, I don't care to get into a religious argument over this. Since I
already have a wrapper script (to implement cvs style modules) I'll just add
this tweak there too.
eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jan 2 20:55:02 2005