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

Re: svn log behaviour

From: Alex Bligh <alex_at_alex.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:09:08 +0000

> --On 14 February 2011 07:57:50 +0000 Alex Bligh <alex_at_alex.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> If I do "svn log ." in a directory, it does not list all changes made
>>>> to all files in that directory (as shown up "svn log <filename>"). I've
>>>> pasted an example at:
>>>> http://pastebin.com/SFYDtkBk
>>>> where r12062 does not show up in "svn log .", but does on the changed
>>>> file.
>>>> svn diff . does the expected, and the file is not in svn:ignore.
>>>> Is this deliberate and how do I get a recursive list of logs?
>>> Is the directory up to date? Try "svn up" first. Otherwise you'll only
>>> get logs up to the revision of the directory (shown with "svn info").
>> Yes, the directory is up to date. In fact all changes were made in that
>> directory (not on another machine).
> Just because you committed the changes from that directory does not mean
> it is up to date. In fact, usually, after committing changes, your
> working copy has mixed revisions and is therefore not up to date. Please
> verify whether running "svn up" first fixes the problem.

It does indeed fix it, even though "svn up" merely reported
"At revision 12087." (i.e implied it didn't change anything); how
odd. - Thanks.

If I had done a "svn ci ." from one level down, would the working
copy have been consistent?

Alex Bligh
Received on 2011-02-14 09:09:49 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.