Hi all,
It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
the following message:
$ svnlook pl --revprop -t 10547-86b /svn/test-svn
svnlook: Invalid revision number '-1'
Observed with Subversion 1.6.6. Looks like offending code is this block in
do_plist():
Hi all,
It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
the following message:
$ svnlook pl --revprop -t 10547-86b /svn/test-svn
svnlook: Invalid revision number '-1'
Observed with Subversion 1.6.6. Looks like offending code is this block in
do_plist():
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
> the following message:
>
> $ svnlook pl --revprop -t 10547-86b /svn/test-svn
> svnlook: Invalid revision number '-1'
>
Looks like you need to use "
On Feb 27, 2010, at 08:36, Olivier Dehon wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
>> It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
>> the following message:
>>
>> $ svnlook pl --revprop -t 10547-86b /svn/test-svn
>> svnlook: Invalid revision nu
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 08:43 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2010, at 08:36, Olivier Dehon wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> >> It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
> >> the following message:
> >>
> >> $ svnlook pl -
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
> the following message:
>
> $ svnlook pl --revprop -t 10547-86b /svn/test-svn
> svnlook: Invalid revision number '-1'
Reproducible with tr...@911289.
>
Olivier,
Actually, I tried to check the presence of some custom properties (say,
foo:bar and foo:baz), so svnlook info does not print them. These properties
are essentially boolean (they're either present or not). So, I tried to check
them all in one run. Instead, I am doing several "svnlook pg
On Saturday 27 February 2010 11:35:24 am Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> > Note that it always uses svn_fs_revision_proplist(), even when '-t TXN'
> > is passed. In this case, c->rev_id == SVN_INVALID_REVNUM (-1), and
> > svn_fs_revision_proplist() rightfully fails.
> >
> > Shouldn't it be using svn_fs_tx
Olivier Dehon wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 08:43 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2010, at 08:36, Olivier Dehon wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
the following message:
>
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:20, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Olivier Dehon wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 08:43 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Why can't he use "svnlook pl --revprop -t" as he suggested? "svnlook help
>>> pl" suggests this should work.
>>
>> Agreed, it might be a missing feature. I was j
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:20, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Olivier Dehon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 08:43 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Why can't he use "svnlook pl --revprop -t" as he suggested? "svnlook help
pl" suggests this should work.
>>> Agreed, it might be a m
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:53, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> So you're saying "svnlook pl --revprop -t" is not meant to work? If that's
>> correct, how are we meant to know this from the output of "svnlook help pl"
>> (which I'll show again) which clearly states that "--revprop" ma
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> Did I miss something in the original problem description? Is that precisely
>> what is being attempted here and yet it's not working?
>
> That is my understanding:
>
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
>> It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Did I miss something in the original problem description? Is that precisely
>>> what is being attempted here and yet it's not working?
>> That is my understanding:
>>
>> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
>>> It seems that I e
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Did I miss something in the original problem description? Is that
precisely
what is being attempted here and yet it's not working?
>>> That is my understanding:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Ale
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:42 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Did I miss something in the original problem description? Is that
precisely
what is being attempted here and yet it's not working?
>>> That is my understanding:
>>>
>>> On Fr
16 matches
Mail list logo
