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 missing feature. I was just trying to suggest a
>>> workaround for what the OP wanted to achieve.
>> This is not an oversight. Subversion's public interfaces have always split
>> trees of changes in the repository into two non-overlapping segments:
>> revisions ("which are sets of tree changes that have been promoted into new,
>> numbered, revisions by the commit process"), and transactions ("which are
>> sets of tree changes not yet promoted into revisions"). We believe that the
>> fact that those "revisions" are just promoted "transactions" (meaning, that
>> you can still address them by their transaction name) is a bit of an
>> implementation detail that needn't be revealed through the public interfaces
>> to Subversion.
>
> 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" may be used
> with either "-r" or "-t"?No, I'm saying that 'svnlook pl --revprop -t TXN_NAME' is expected to work only if TXN_NAME is the name of an uncommitted transaction. Did I miss something in the original problem description? Is that precisely what is being attempted here and yet it's not working? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
