Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:33:22 +0100
From: "Andrei A. Voropaev" <av@simcon-mt.com>
To: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] changes: tree shows no revisions in version ?
Message-ID: <20041209143322.GE24012@avorop.local>
Mail-Followup-To: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>,
	gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
References: <20041209112712.GA24012@avorop.local>
	<41B85203.9080908@arbash-meinel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41B85203.9080908@arbash-meinel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1616
Lines: 54
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 07:24:19AM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Andrei A. Voropaev wrote:
> 
> >Hi!
> >
> >We have modified files in the project tree. Now I want to see the changes
> >and run 'tla changes' at the top of the tree. I get back
> >
> >$ tla changes
> >
> >changes: tree shows no revisions in version
> > tree: /home/sm/dev/projects/proj-r4
> > version: sm@myhost--projects-proj/proj-r4--pre1--0.18
> >
> >What shall I do next to figure out the problem?
> >
> >Andrei
> > 
> >
> 
> How did you get your working tree? Is this a newly created tree (where 
> you run tla init-tree), or is it something that you checked out?

I've checked it out.
> 
> If this is a tree that you checked out, it sounds like you deleted some 
> patch logs inside the {arch} directory (probably accidentally).

Nope. All patch-log files seem to be in place. 

$ cat ./++default-version 
sm@myhost--projects-proj/proj-r4--pre1--0.18

$ ls
++default-version  ,,inode-sigs  old-smdc  ++pristine-trees  proj-r4  =tagging-method

$ ls proj-r4/proj-r4--pre1/proj-r4--pre1--0.18/av\@myhost.com--proj-projects/patch-log/
base-0  patch-1

But there's someting strange about it. The final directory before the
'patch-log' has name that differs from the archive name in
++default-version. Can it be the source of the problem? If yes, then can
I simply change ++default-version to the value preceding patch-log?

Andrei


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/