On Feb 15, 2007, at 12:53, Tim Noell wrote:
> The "file@rev" (PEG revision) formulation seems to work for these
> files. e.g.,
> galaxy 0 ~% svn ls -r 127892 https://mls:8043/mls3/lf/futures/next/
> branches/StrikerEng/archives/eea/thineng/Striker/apps/
> colorcal_app_align.c
> svn: REPORT request failed on '/mls3/!svn/bc/129661/lf/futures/next/
> branches/StrikerEng/archives/eea/thineng/Striker/apps/
> colorcal_app_align.c'
> svn: File not found: revision 127478, path '/lf/futures/next/wip/
> thineng/Striker/apps/colorcal_app_align.c'
>
> fails, while:
>
> galaxy 1 ~% svn ls https://mls:8043/mls3/lf/futures/next/branches/
> StrikerEng/archives/eea/thineng/Striker/apps/
> colorcal_app_align.c@127892
> colorcal_app_align.c
>
> succeeds.
>
> Howeverr, this file exists in all revisions from when it was
> created (r127892) up to and including HEAD. So, the
> "file@rev" (PEG) formulation shouldn't be needed, right?
>
> Even if file@rev formulation is needed, the behaviour is
> inconsistent between the files that were added at the same time
> (r127892). .buildname and colorcal_app_align.h are fine with
> either form, while colorcal_app_align.c, colorcal_app_rto.h and
> colorcal_app_rto.c only work with the file@rev formulation, yet all
> files were created in the repo at the same time.
Sounds like Subversion doesn't think those files' histories are
continuous. Have those files been deleted and re-added at some point?
You may want to check the complete log of those files, with the -v
option, to see what's been happening with them.
--
To reply to the mailing list, please use your mailer's Reply To All
function
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 15 22:12:32 2007