Jon DeVree wrote on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 at 17:57 -0400:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 23:53:43 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > % svn info iota2 iota3 | grep "Last Changed Rev"
> > Last Changed Rev: 2
> > Last Changed Rev: 3
> >
>
> Try it with a directory that includes files and subdirectories and
> you'll be able to reproduce it. The actual directory used as the root of
> the copy operation has the correct Last Changed Rev, as I noted already:
>
Oh, sorry. Here's the output for a directory with children:
[[[
% svn cp -q A A2
% svn ci -q -m "r2: add A2"
% svn cp -q ^/trunk/A ^/trunk/A3 -m "r3: add A3"
% svn up -q
% svn info A2 A3 | grep "Last Changed Rev"
Last Changed Rev: 2
Last Changed Rev: 3
### why do the following two differ?
% svn info A2/mu A3/mu | grep "Last Changed Rev"
Last Changed Rev: 2
Last Changed Rev: 1
% svn --version -q
1.7.0-dev-r925148
%
]]]
The second 'info' command treats A2/mu and A3/mu differently, and
I don't see any reason for it do do so. (i.e., this seems to be a bug.)
> > SVN info on the root of the copy shows the expected information:
> >
> > $ svn info file:///tmp/svn-repo/branches/mine
> > Last Changed Author: jadevree
> > Last Changed Rev: 5
> > Last Changed Date: 2010-03-29 13:43:06 -0400 (Mon, 29 Mar 2010)
>
*nod*
> It is the files and subdirectories of this that are wrong:
>
> > But SVN info on the file that got copied with the branch is wrong:
> >
> > $ svn info file:///tmp/svn-repo/branches/mine/file
> > Last Changed Author: jadevree
> > Last Changed Rev: 2
> > Last Changed Date: 2010-03-29 13:40:30 -0400 (Mon, 29 Mar 2010)
>
> And this is inconsistent with what svn log reports as the last change:
>
> > $ svn log file:///tmp/svn-repo/branches/mine/file
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > r5 | jadevree | 2010-03-29 13:43:06 -0400 (Mon, 29 Mar 2010) | 1 line
> >
> > test branch
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > r2 | jadevree | 2010-03-29 13:40:30 -0400 (Mon, 29 Mar 2010) | 1 line
> >
> > foo
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
So, 'log' does consider the copy-of-a-parent as a change to the child,
while 'info' doesn't. I'm not sure whether or not this is intentional.
>
