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

Re: What I really want is to be able to "svn log" back to the beginning of repo time

From: Dan Stromberg <dstromberglists_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:40:50 -0700

Hari Kodungallur wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Dan Stromberg
> <dstromberglists_at_gmail.com <mailto:dstromberglists_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> If I run a basic "svn log" command like:
>
> $ svn log http://eng2/svn/Datallegro/branches/v3.1.4-dev | wc -l
> 128
>
> ...as you can see, I get a tiny number of lines - but there should
> be thousands if svn is going back to the beginning of repository
> history as I keep hearing it's supposed to. And we could really
> use complete history.
>
> I get that same short result whether using an svn 1.1.4 client on
> CentOS 4.6, or an svn 1.4.4 client on openSUSE 10.3. In both
> cases, the clients are talking to an svn 1.1.4 server via WebDAV
> with FSFS backends on CentOS 4.6.
>
> I know, 1.1.4 is really old. I doubt my management is going to go
> for an upgrade without a really good reason though. Is there much
> chance that upgrading the subversion (and 3 repositories) on our
> server to 1.4.6 would help "svn log" go back to the beginning of
> time like it should? Or would it at least fix new commits?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> The default behaviour of svn is traverse the history of the branch
> when doing svn log. So you should have got all the history until the
> beginning of time. Please look at the entire content of the 'svn log'
> and see where it stops.
>
> Did you create the branch using the 'svn copy' command? Or was it
> populated from a local copy of source code or something like that? I
> know that sounds like something no one would do; but I can not imagine
> a scenario where svn will not print the whole history of a branch.
> Basically if you do "svn log -v URL --stop-on-copy" and then look at
> the very last printed revision, you will be able to tell how the
> branch was created?
>
>
> Regards,
> -Hari
I'm afraid we are probably checking out, changing and checking in, like
you said no one would do :)

This is kind of interesting:

    $ svn log -v http://eng2/svn/Datallegro/branches/v3.1.4-dev
    --stop-on-copy | wc -l
    199
    eng2-da_build:~/.subversion i686-redhat-linux-gnu 8879 - above cmd
    done 2008 Thu Apr 03 02:24 PM

    $ svn log -v http://eng2/svn/Datallegro/branches/v3.1.4-dev | wc -l
    199
    eng2-da_build:~/.subversion i686-redhat-linux-gnu 8879 - above cmd
    done 2008 Thu Apr 03 02:24 PM

It seems to stop at the same place --stop-on-copy does.

The way we create new branches is to:
1) "svn checkout" the source branch nonrecursively - this doesn't really
check out much
2) modify the external references at the top level
3) do an "svn update" to get the rest of the code - this checks out a lot
4) modify a few remaining externals
5) "svn update" again
6) "svn switch" to name the checked out code to something new
7) "svn commit"

Is that appropriate? I don't have a huge amount of SCM experience, and
inherited most of this process.

I suspect we may be doing it this way because our trunk is scattered all
over, but we have a single subversion directory with external references
that unifies the pieces.

Is the alternative to do one "svn copy" for every external reference?

Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-03 23:41:24 CEST

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