Can your svn updating be more verbose?

[mwedel]

This appears to be a limitation of SVN. I suspect it is because when you do a SVN update, it knows it got a new file, but doesn't really know what changed in that file, or what the last update log was.

At least for myself, it will display the version, eg:

%svn update
<files update ommitted>
Updated to revision 18310.

Now mercurial (hg) does do a better job on listing the changes, and mercurial can deal with SVN repositories. However, there are other problems with it - mainly, that it only deals with the entire repository (sounds, arch, maps, client, jxclient, gridarta, server, etc), so an update can take quite a while. And the initial pull is real painful to get done. However, when doing a pull, it does display like:

[r18309] rjtanner: Cosmetic and layout changes to Castle Kitchen (scorn/misc/cas
[r18310] rjtanner: Minor change with how fence (swall) section merges with nearb

hg log will basically show the same data, but does it on the entire repository, so you can see all the changes made in all areas and branches.

[SilverNexus]

I switched my repository checkout to trunk, and it actually gave me the file update information I have previously described it lacking.

Maybe it will keep doing this, now that it finally decided to start doing what it already should have done.

[mwedel]

I suspect the reason you did not see files updates is that branches very seldom get updates, so once you check out a branch, it is never updated.

The main reason for the branches is really snapshots - if some question comes up about issues in a particular version, it makes it easy to look at the code at that version.

[SilverNexus]

Yep. So in the end, this whole giant two page mess about subversion updating all came down to a decision I made in no more than a minute back in January (choosing a tag over trunk).

That clears up a lot. Thank you.