Hi,
I've run over a strange situation and want to know if this is OK to happen (in
my opinion it shouldn't). These are the details:
- one of our servers has a repository with Subversion 1.4 format
- I have a working copy from a given repository path, let it be
"http://R/svn/repos/userguide";
- i
something which worked fine seems to be
broken.
Have any idea about what else could trigger this behavior ?!
Best Regards,
Florin
From: Ryan Schmidt
To: Florin Avram
Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 4:10:52 PM
Subject: Re: Log
Hi,
If having an SVN 1.7 working copy which was deleted from the repository,
svn status -u
does not report any remote change, unless using
svn status -u -v
Is this OK? I would expect to report that there are remote changes. This
was the behavior in SVN 1.6.
Regards,
Florin Avram
Hi,
Two things I've noticed:
1) svn status switched.txt => file reported as switched
svn delete --keep-local switched.txt
svn status switched.txt => the file is reported as DELETED, but not
as SWITCHED anymore (although "svn info" indicates the correct URL from
the branch)
2) Also, w
ed item (delete + add).
Best Regards,
Florin
On 04.04.2013 15:19, Bert Huijben wrote:
-Original Message-
From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematt...@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of
Philip Martin
Sent: donderdag 4 april 2013 12:42
To: Florin Avram
Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re:
Hi,
Well, I don't know how often this situation can be seen, so it is up to
you (SVN developers) to decide what to do (I just signaled the issue).
Regards,
Florin
On 05.04.2013 17:41, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 05:12:10PM +0300, Syncro SVN Client Support wrote:
Hi,
I f
On 08.04.2013 11:01, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
[CC += dev@, so fullquote; please drop users@ on replies]
Florin Avram wrote on Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:51:30 +0300:
On 05.04.2013 17:41, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 05:12:10PM +0300, Syncro SVN Client Support wrote:
Hi,
I found
Hi,
I've found a strange behavior in the situation described below and
wanted to let you know - I think there could be an issue or a need of
improvement (don't know what exactly).
Subversion: 1.8.x, 1.7.x.
The situation is as follows (the minimum necessary to reproduce the issue):
- have a wo
as changes (it was replaced), but
the file is already updated. Somehow, this can be misleading, even more
if users are not very SVN-experimented.
Best Regards,
Florin
On 30.09.2013 12:54, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:58:35AM +0300, Florin Avram wrote:
Hi,
I've
deleted without warning.
Are these changes intentional in SVN 1.8?! Any clarification/details
about above situations is welcomed.
Regards,
Florin Avram
On 04.02.2014 14:06, Philip Martin wrote:
Stefan Sperling writes:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 11:49:24AM +0200, Florin Avram wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that SVN 1.8.5 does not give warnings for some situations, when
using "svn delete" (previously, using SVN 1.7.x, it did):
1. have a fil
On 04.02.2014 14:51, Philip Martin wrote:
Florin Avram writes:
So, my question is: is this SVN 1.8 "svn delete" behavior intentional
or it should behave like with SVN 1.7 ?!
It was a result of a deliberate change in r1442611 to allow the delete
of unmodified copies without force:
1.8.5 (r1542147)
compiled Nov 27 2013, 04:10:18 on x86_64/x86-microsoft-windows5.1.2600
Regards,
Florin Avram
ling wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:50:02PM +0200, Florin Avram wrote:
Hi,
I found a situation when using "svn revert" seems to corrupt the working
copy. In a working copy like this:
- wc_root_dir
-- directory
--- file
erase the directory from disk (not using SVN) and create a fil
I think I know enough about Subversion and work with it for more than 5
years, so I know very well what obstructed and missing means, and that
Subversion tries to not erase non-versioned data.I know only less about
new SVN 1.8.x behavior, which I'm testing currently, and which in some
situation
this working copy "blockage".
Indeed, I work on Windows.
Should I create a new issue regarding the error messages for this
situation, or someone else does this?!
On 19.02.2014 16:42, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:52:48PM +0200, Florin Avram wrote:
I understand yo
ior?! I tested with:
svn, version 1.8.5 (r1542147)
compiled Nov 27 2013, 04:10:18 on x86_64/x86-microsoft-windows5.1.2600
This behavior is consistent on both Windows and Linux.
Thanks,
Florin Avram
17 matches
Mail list logo
