List Info

Thread: Re: 'svn ls' not consistent with w.c. status? (1.4.3)




Re: 'svn ls' not consistent with w.c. status? (1.4.3)
user name
2007-06-06 12:03:22
On 6-Jun-07, at 1:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:

> Toby Thain wrote:
>> ... after committing r12 from this working copy
(Subclipse), I tried:
>> $ svn ls -v
>>       2 emil            17987 Jun 02 12:41 GPL
>>      11 emil             1136 Jun 05 19:00
Makefile
>>      11 emil             1616 Jun 05 19:00 README
>>      11 emil             2293 Jun 05 19:00
addr_calc.c
>>      11 emil             5406 Jun 05 19:00
disasm.c
>>      11 emil             6359 Jun 05 19:00 emul.c
>>      11 emil             4718 Jun 05 19:00
in_out.c
>>      11 emil             3046 Jun 05 19:00
loader.c
>>      11 emil             1814 Jun 05 19:00
reg_flags.h
>>      11 emil             1163 Jun 05 19:00
version.h
>> I was surprised that none of the files updated in
r12 were marked  
>> as such, so I did:
>> $ svn up
>> At revision 12.
>> Then 'ls' showed what I expected:
>> $ svn ls -v
>>       2 emil            17987 Jun 02 12:41 GPL
>>      12 toby             1140 Jun 05 20:40
Makefile
>>      11 emil             1616 Jun 05 19:00 README
>>      11 emil             2293 Jun 05 19:00
addr_calc.c
>>      11 emil             5406 Jun 05 19:00
disasm.c
>>      12 toby             6345 Jun 05 20:40 emul.c
>>      12 toby             4786 Jun 05 20:40
in_out.c
>>      12 toby             3128 Jun 05 20:40
loader.c
>>      11 emil             1814 Jun 05 19:00
reg_flags.h
>>      11 emil             1163 Jun 05 19:00
version.h
>> Is this normal behaviour?
>
> Yes, you never pull updates down from the server for
files that  
> were not committed.

I realise; but this doesn't explain to me the behaviour
above. The 4  
files comprising r12 were *just committed* in this same
working copy,  
and I don't understand why 'svn ls' did not reflect that.

--Toby

>
> See the mixed revision working copy portion of the Svn
boko.
>
> http
://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.2/svn.basic.in- 
> action.html#svn.basic.in-action.mixedrevs
>
> Regards,
> Blair
>
> --
> Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
> Subversion training, consulting and support
> http://www.orcaware.com/
svn/

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribesubclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-helpsubclipse.tigris.org


Re: Re: 'svn ls' not consistent with w.c. status? (1.4.3)
user name
2007-06-06 12:08:49
Toby,

Subclipse does not actually touch your WC. We run Subversion
API's.
Are you using JavaHL or SVNKit?  Did you try the same thing
using the
command line?  If the command line and Subclipse give
different
results after a commit, then that would point to a bug in
either
JavaHL or SVNKit.

Given that JavaHL is running the same code as the command
line, it
would be more likely to be a problem in SVNKit.

Mark


On 6/6/07, Toby Thain <tobysmartgames.ca> wrote:
>
> On 6-Jun-07, at 1:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> > Toby Thain wrote:
> >> ... after committing r12 from this working
copy (Subclipse), I tried:
> >> $ svn ls -v
> >>       2 emil            17987 Jun 02 12:41
GPL
> >>      11 emil             1136 Jun 05 19:00
Makefile
> >>      11 emil             1616 Jun 05 19:00
README
> >>      11 emil             2293 Jun 05 19:00
addr_calc.c
> >>      11 emil             5406 Jun 05 19:00
disasm.c
> >>      11 emil             6359 Jun 05 19:00
emul.c
> >>      11 emil             4718 Jun 05 19:00
in_out.c
> >>      11 emil             3046 Jun 05 19:00
loader.c
> >>      11 emil             1814 Jun 05 19:00
reg_flags.h
> >>      11 emil             1163 Jun 05 19:00
version.h
> >> I was surprised that none of the files updated
in r12 were marked
> >> as such, so I did:
> >> $ svn up
> >> At revision 12.
> >> Then 'ls' showed what I expected:
> >> $ svn ls -v
> >>       2 emil            17987 Jun 02 12:41
GPL
> >>      12 toby             1140 Jun 05 20:40
Makefile
> >>      11 emil             1616 Jun 05 19:00
README
> >>      11 emil             2293 Jun 05 19:00
addr_calc.c
> >>      11 emil             5406 Jun 05 19:00
disasm.c
> >>      12 toby             6345 Jun 05 20:40
emul.c
> >>      12 toby             4786 Jun 05 20:40
in_out.c
> >>      12 toby             3128 Jun 05 20:40
loader.c
> >>      11 emil             1814 Jun 05 19:00
reg_flags.h
> >>      11 emil             1163 Jun 05 19:00
version.h
> >> Is this normal behaviour?
> >
> > Yes, you never pull updates down from the server
for files that
> > were not committed.
>
> I realise; but this doesn't explain to me the behaviour
above. The 4
> files comprising r12 were *just committed* in this same
working copy,
> and I don't understand why 'svn ls' did not reflect
that.
>
> --Toby
>
> >
> > See the mixed revision working copy portion of the
Svn boko.
> >
> > http
://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.2/svn.basic.in-
> > action.html#svn.basic.in-action.mixedrevs
> >
> > Regards,
> > Blair
> >
> > --
> > Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
> > Subversion training, consulting and support
> > http://www.orcaware.com/
svn/
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribesubclipse.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-helpsubclipse.tigris.org
>
>


-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspo
t.com/

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribesubclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-helpsubclipse.tigris.org


[1-2]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )