True except in my environment those are non issue as we control it pretty
tightly with process (and I would assume most professional development
shops are under similar constraints?). I actually started with revision
numbers but I wanted to specifically use the date time and not revision
number for
That's an interesting one.
I don't know why you're seeing the behavior you're seeing. However, I can
tell you that relying on the date is probably a mistake. Instead, better to
capture the revision # for the repository, and log for revision #s after
the last one you got. There are scenarios in whi
I'm running a script on a scheduled basis where each new iteration I'm
essentially checking against a newer time from the last check-in, so if the
last check-in was at 2017-02-23T18:51:15.175583Z the goal would be to add
ticks to that after that in terms of the revision to retrieve everything
after
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>
>> [[[
>> $ ls -l .svn
>> total 160146
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 johndoe devgrp3 Mar 21 2014 entries
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 johndoe devgrp3 Mar 21 2014 format
>> dr
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> [[[
> $ ls -l .svn
> total 160146
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 johndoe devgrp3 Mar 21 2014 entries
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 johndoe devgrp3 Mar 21 2014 format
> drwxrwxr-x 258 johndoe devgrp 258 Mar 21 2014 pristine/
> d
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> No. They're granted whatever access is allowed by the umask. See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umask
>
> If the umask is 002 then all created files will, by default, allow read
> and write access to the user and the user's primary group. Ne
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 23.02.2017 23:59, Stefan wrote:
>> On 2/22/2017 17:13, Carlos Adean wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> - Mensagem original -
De: "Stefan Hett"
Para: users@subversion.apache.org
Enviadas: Segunda-feira, 20 de fevereiro de
