ch03: log -r {DATE}: state the most likely reason
Daniel Shahaf
danielsh at apache.org
Sat Feb 25 02:30:20 CST 2017
Someone just asked on users@ about the -r {DATE} binary search issue,
and I realized the warning box doesn't describe the most likely cause of
that (svnadmin load).
I suppose the warning box might want to grow an id="" attribute.
Feel free to tweak. I left the first hunk unreflowed to make the diff
readable.
Cheers,
Daniel
Index: ch03-advanced-topics.xml
===================================================================
--- ch03-advanced-topics.xml (revision 5302)
+++ ch03-advanced-topics.xml (working copy)
@@ -308,11 +308,7 @@
</informalexample>
<warning>
- <para>Since the timestamp of a revision is stored as an
- unversioned, modifiable property of the revision (see <xref
- linkend="svn.advanced.props" />), revision timestamps can be
- changed to represent complete falsifications of true
- chronology, or even removed altogether. Subversion's
+ <para>Subversion's
ability to correctly convert revision dates into real
revision numbers depends on revision datestamps maintaining
a sequential ordering—the younger the revision, the
@@ -319,7 +315,15 @@
younger its timestamp. If this ordering isn't maintained,
you will likely find that trying to use dates to specify
revision ranges in your repository doesn't always return the
- data you might have expected.</para>
+ data you might have expected.
+
+ The <literal>svn:date</literal> timestamps are stored in
+ unversioned, modifiable property of the revision (see <xref
+ linkend="svn.advanced.props" />). The most common reason
+ for them to be unordered is loading history into an existing
+ repository (see <xref linkend="svn.reposadmin.maint.migrate"
+ />).
+ </para>
</warning>
</sect2>
More information about the svnbook-dev
mailing list