RE: AW: Timestamp issue with "svn status" in 1.9.3

2016-03-06 Thread Peter Klotz
Hello Philip > > Instead of "why is the second change not reported" it should be "why > > is the first change reported". > > > > Relevant part of the script: > > At this point Subversion has recorded a timestamp for the file. > > > echo "2" > x > > touch -m -t "20121231.00" x > > svn -

Re: AW: Timestamp issue with "svn status" in 1.9.3

2016-03-04 Thread Philip Martin
Peter Klotz writes: > Instead of "why is the second change not reported" it should be "why > is the first change reported". > > Relevant part of the script: At this point Subversion has recorded a timestamp for the file. > echo "2" > x > touch -m -t "20121231.00" x > svn -q status <-