how to detect read-only branch from client?

[Torsten Mueller]

I write a script getting sources from one repository, doing a build and
other time consuming things and then committing the results into another
repsitory.

The problem is: the detination side is "managed" which means that I must
expect read only branches there. They use the path based authentication
feature (see VisualSVNServer) without any communication. They want to
close a branch for commits, that's enough communication.

But in my case it would be very bad to start a process which runs for an
hour or longer and then fails because it can't do the final commit.

How can I detect if a path in the destination directory is read only
without modifying it?

My first guess was to use "svnmucc propdel" to delete a property which
doesn't exist. This works great on a branch which is read only. But on
the other side it creates always a revision on normal branches. That's
not good. What can I do?

T.M.

Re: Can't get "svn log --use-merge-history" to list all

[Stefan Karlsson]

No I haven't really found a solution, the problem is still there.
I have however found that if get the log on the folder instead of the file
then I see all revisions.

That is, using this command (with svn version 1.9.5):
  *svn log --use-merge-history --verbose work\trunk\ > log2.txt*

/Stefan

2016-12-08 2:11 GMT+01:00 Gábor Kertai :

> I just hit this same brick wall when trying to use the XML output from
> command line SVN 1.9.3. Did you happen to find a solution?
>
> Regardless of how many revisions were merged into a commit, I only receive
> the  node for just one of
> them. SVN seems to pick a random revision to include, it is not always the
> "first" revision in any logical order.
>
> Regards,
> Gabor
>
> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 6:51:18 PM UTC+1, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>
>
>> Showing the log on the file, with:"svn log --use-merge-history --verbose
>> trunk\example.txt
>>
>> It shows (as expected) each change made in the second branch, but NOT
>> each change made in the first branch !?!?!
>>
>> ...and the file does include all the changes, but why isn't it listed in
>> the log?
>>
>> BTW, I'm using svn, version 1.9.3 (r1718519)
>>
>> Is this a bug or am I doing it wrong?
>>
>> /Stefan
>>
>>