On 6-Jun-07, at 6:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> ...
>>> Also, to comment on Blair's point, I think even if we are to
>>> consider mixed revisions, it is an issue. If you made the commit
>>> from your working copy, you expect that your working copy will
>>> reflect that commit that you made
>
> The working copy does reflect the commit you just made. But the
> "svn ls" command, as explained, shows what's in the repository, not
> what's in your working copy, and it works by default on the
> revision of the directory you're in when you run the command.
That would explain what I saw. But I found it surprising enough that
I posted here...
>
>> Yes, that was also my expectation. This isn't a mixed-rev w.c., so
>> what I saw was at least counter-intuitive, if not actually incorrect.
>
> Most working copies are mixed-revision. At the very latest, your
> working copy became mixed-revision as soon as you committed, as I
> explained above.
Alright. So it's normal that running 'svn up' (which had no updates
to bring down) would change the view of 'ls'?
After the 'svn up', is it a mixed rev w.c. or not? And what's the
revision of . after the 'svn up'? It would still be r11, right? So
why did ls suddenly show me something new? I'm still not clear. But I
may just be dense.
--Toby
>
>> Mark may be on to something by pointing the finger at SVNKit
>> (which I think is what my Subclipse is using).
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 6 23:56:28 2007