> > --On 14 February 2011 07:57:50 +0000 Alex Bligh > <a...@alex.org.uk> wrote: > > > >>>> If I do "svn log ." in a directory, it does not list all > changes made > >>>> to all files in that directory (as shown up "svn log > <filename>"). I've > >>>> pasted an example at: > >>>> http://pastebin.com/SFYDtkBk > >>>> where r12062 does not show up in "svn log .", but does > on the changed > >>>> file. > >>>> > >>>> svn diff . does the expected, and the file is not in svn:ignore. > >>>> > >>>> Is this deliberate and how do I get a recursive list of logs? > >>> > >>> Is the directory up to date? Try "svn up" first. > Otherwise you'll only > >>> get logs up to the revision of the directory (shown with > "svn info"). > >> > >> Yes, the directory is up to date. In fact all changes were > made in that > >> directory (not on another machine). > > > > Just because you committed the changes from that directory > does not mean > > it is up to date. In fact, usually, after committing changes, your > > working copy has mixed revisions and is therefore not up to > date. Please > > verify whether running "svn up" first fixes the problem. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Bligh [mailto:a...@alex.org.uk] > Sent: 14 February 2011 08:09 > To: Ryan Schmidt > Cc: users@subversion.apache.org; Alex Bligh > Subject: Re: svn log behaviour > > It does indeed fix it, even though "svn up" merely reported > "At revision 12087." (i.e implied it didn't change anything); how > odd. - Thanks. > > If I had done a "svn ci ." from one level down, would the working > copy have been consistent? > Can I suggest you read the manual at: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.in-action.html
There is a section about mixed-revision repositories. In a nutshell, 'ci' only updates the files that have changed (having checked that the others have not changed) but does NOT do an automatic update afterwards. This means that only the files affected are at the new revision... ~ mark c
