I think it's intentional.
If we change the first command to have the semantics of the second
command, wouldn't it mean that the second command is equivalent to
'svn revert -R ./'?
If yes, we can't change it --- rather bad compatibility surprised for
everyone who's used to 'svn revert --cl foo -R
DON'T DO IT THIS WAY. Follow Stefan's advice upthread.
Am Dienstag, 16. November 2010 schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Christoph Bartoschek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > what is the advantage of using
> >
> > ^/trunk/project/subproj...@40 subproject
>
> This new format does support relative URLs.
>
> > compared to
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Gary wrote:
> Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>> The short answer is that if a "standard" email client (for me, m$
>> outlook)
>
> I'm sorry. According to every other poster you are only allowed to use
> things which are specified in an RFC. Dump
Greetings, Gary!
> Thanks (both of you). I'd have appreciated it even more if you had
> followed the "Mail-Copies-To: never" header.
That is not standard header. If you really do not wish to receive personal
reply, set the Reply-To address back to the mailing list, which is the right
way to do th
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 02:55:30PM +0100, Ludwig, Michael wrote:
> Replying to myself now that I realize the issue:
>
> > From: Ludwig, Michael [mailto:michael.lud...@delphi-mb.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:21 PM
>
> > > > what is the advantage of using
> > > >
> > > > ^/trunk/proj
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:38:57PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> I don't see why it matters that it's a "sub-branch". It's still a
> (grand-)child of mybranch, so can perfectly inherit that mergeinfo.
> AFAIU it only needs explicit mergeinfo if it starts to deviate from
> the mybranch root (e.g.
Nope, it just says it was merged.
Perhaps --show-copies-as-adds will do the trick, but it's not available in
1.6 :(
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name]
Sent: 15. november 2010 16:55
To: Jahn Otto Andersen
Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re:
Replying to myself now that I realize the issue:
> From: Ludwig, Michael [mailto:michael.lud...@delphi-mb.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:21 PM
> > > what is the advantage of using
> > >
> > > ^/trunk/project/subproj...@40 subproject
> >
> > This new format does support relative
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:40:42PM +1000, Daniel Becroft wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Daniel Becroft wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've just found (another) issue with using URL-only renames. If one of the
>> > parent director
Which again is not part of any email standard, just Daniel J.
Bernstein's wish list from 1997, codified as an IETF draft in 2000, but
never actually elevated to an approved RFC. Although a number of MUAs
honour it, some (like Mozilla Thunderbird) explicitly rejected honouring
these headers by defa
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Levy [mailto:andy.l...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 November 2010 11:28
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Mail-Copies-To
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 06:19, Gary
> wrote:
> > Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> If you don't wish to receive copies of rep
Hi,
I have found an odd behaviour with the revert command. Maybe it's intended, but
I don't find it very intuitive. I'm using SVN 1.6.9.
If I have a changelist and I want to revert all changes made in all files in
the changelist I would use the following
svn revert --changelist
That doesn't
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Gary wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> If you don't wish to receive copies of replies on the list, one possible
>> solution is to set the Reply-To header of your outgoing mail to the
>> list's address.
>
> Mail-Followup-To was also set.
So? Could you be a little
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 06:19, Gary wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> If you don't wish to receive copies of replies on the list, one possible
>> solution is to set the Reply-To header of your outgoing mail to the
>> list's address.
>
> Mail-Followup-To was also set.
>
I can't find where this is
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:40:42PM +1000, Daniel Becroft wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Daniel Becroft wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just found (another) issue with using URL-only renames. If one of the
> > parent directories has svn:mergeinfo recorded on it, then renaming a file
> > vi
On Nov 19, 2010, at 03:06, Gary wrote:
> I'd have appreciated it even more if you had
> followed the "Mail-Copies-To: never" header.
I cannot find any RFC specifying that header. All I can find is the
"Mail-Copies-To Draft" from 1999, and it seems to apply only to NNTP
newsreaders. In fact it
> Is there any way of finding out what branches I have created? I did look
> at the "red book" but it seems like there isn't anything, at least not
> where I expected to find it.
Assuming you placed your branches in 'branches':
svn list [URL]/branches
Arpad Ilia
>
Linedata Limited
Registered Office: 85 Gracechurch St., London, EC3V 0AA
Registered in England and Wales No 3475006 VAT Reg No 710 3140 03
-Original Message-
> From: Gary [mailto:subversion-u...@garydjones.name]
> Sent: 19 November 2010 08:32
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subje
try this:
http://www.szakmeister.net/fsfsverify/
On 19.11.2010, at 07:04, Rajesh Menakath wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently we upgraded our svn server/client from 1.6.2 to 1.6.13, and since
> then, we are encountering the following error when a user tries to
> checkout/update a svn resource, wher
Hi,
Recently we upgraded our svn server/client from 1.6.2 to 1.6.13, and
since then, we are encountering the following error when a user tries to
checkout/update a svn resource, where he has the required access (both
read and write).
svn: REPORT of '/svnrepository/!svn/vcc/default':
21 matches
Mail list logo
