Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, 28 May 2010 at 01:22 +0200:
> I think Daniel means
No, that's not what I meant.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:34:07PM -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf >wrote:
> >
> > > How would recursing interact with symlinks into working copy dirs?
> > > (I know we it have been discuss
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:34:07PM -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > How would recursing interact with symlinks into working copy dirs?
> > (I know we it have been discussed before; a pointer would be appreciated)
> >
> > eg:
> >
> >svn
> > > "deeply nested" usually means only 10-15 folders. Recursing up to find
> > the
> > > root of the working copy is a one-time operation during the course of an
> > > invocation of 'svn' on that working copy. As such, it's essentially a
> > free
> > > operation.
> > >
> >
> > How would recursi
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> [ fixed leading "> " signs ]
>
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Thu, 27 May 2010 at 16:17 -0500:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
> >
> > > > > Will per-directory .svn's remain as an option in 1.7+? (I thought
> > > > > yes.
[ fixed leading "> " signs ]
Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Thu, 27 May 2010 at 16:17 -0500:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
>
> > > > Will per-directory .svn's remain as an option in 1.7+? (I thought
> > > > yes...)
> > >
> > > Not to my knowledge. I wasn't aware of the use ca
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
> > Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 at 16:16 -0500:
> > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Armstrong
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > I'm seeing strange behaviour on a Win7_64 machine running the 1.6.9
> > > >
> On May 27, 2010, at 15:40, Bob Archer wrote:
>
> > How will it work with Nested checkouts?
> >
> > For example if I do:
> >
> > svn co ^/MyProjectFolder ProjectName
> > cd ProjectName
> > svn co ^/MyDocumentationProject doc
> >
> > You can do this now... as a matter of fact we do.
>
> Wouldn't
On May 27, 2010, at 15:40, Bob Archer wrote:
> How will it work with Nested checkouts?
>
> For example if I do:
>
> svn co ^/MyProjectFolder ProjectName
> cd ProjectName
> svn co ^/MyDocumentationProject doc
>
> You can do this now... as a matter of fact we do.
Wouldn't externals be a better
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 at 16:16 -0500:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Armstrong
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I'm seeing strange behaviour on a Win7_64 machine running the 1.6.9
> > > command-line binaries.
> > >
> > > I have a working copy checked out
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 at 16:16 -0500:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Armstrong
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I'm seeing strange behaviour on a Win7_64 machine running the 1.6.9
> > > command-line
Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 at 16:16 -0500:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Armstrong
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm seeing strange behaviour on a Win7_64 machine running the 1.6.9
> > command-line binaries.
> >
> > I have a working copy checked out (C:\wc). Inside it
On 27-May-10 21:03, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Stein Somers wrote:
On 26-May-10 23:37, Daniel Becroft wrote:
Now SVN knows the folder is unversioned ...
But only according to the false assumption it made that the folder was
deleted from the repository.
Surely n
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Stein Somers wrote:
> On 26-May-10 23:37, Daniel Becroft wrote:
>>
>> The folder is still there, without a .svn folder inside it, and svn
>> doesn't know what to do with it.
>> C:\wc>svn st
>> ? log
>>
>>
>> Now SVN knows the folder is unversioned
On 26-May-10 23:37, Daniel Becroft wrote:
The folder is still there, without a .svn folder inside it, and svn
doesn't know what to do with it.
C:\wc>svn st
? log
Now SVN knows the folder is unversioned ...
But only according to the false assumption it made that the folde
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Armstrong
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm seeing strange behaviour on a Win7_64 machine running the 1.6.9
> command-line binaries.
>
> I have a working copy checked out (C:\wc). Inside it, there's an empty
> folder that's source-controlled (C:\wc\logs). If I dele
Wow, that was a fast reply.
Ok, I'll just work around it for now then. Thanks for getting back to me.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Armstrong <
> steve.armstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello al
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Armstrong
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm seeing strange behaviour on a Win7_64 machine running the 1.6.9
> command-line binaries.
>
> I have a working copy checked out (C:\wc). Inside it, there's an empty
> folder that's source-controlled (C:\wc\logs). If I dele
Hello all,
I'm seeing strange behaviour on a Win7_64 machine running the 1.6.9
command-line binaries.
I have a working copy checked out (C:\wc). Inside it, there's an empty
folder that's source-controlled (C:\wc\logs). If I delete the .svn folder
from within logs, then doing an "svn st" in the ba
19 matches
Mail list logo
