Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6F9200C26 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:24:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id C8FD1160B5D; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id E5620160B5B for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:24:46 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 60616 invoked by uid 500); 25 Feb 2017 08:24:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 60606 invoked by uid 99); 25 Feb 2017 08:24:41 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:24:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7D835185DBB for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:24:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.068 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.068 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcijAhcQL6Kh for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1C13D5F30F for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03937208EE; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:24:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:24:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=WDBxs8M43lQrB0bD7MlW5gs2C98=; b=uLoj5IxbUixvCUhhEipY XtD0vBoaExvH8yIJh5rU5slPmpzJAgAVNDZHlELmq3FgNoLW+ix2VhOKRm1JWa+l Mcov/XaENV5R+3Ubwjfy67Mhw+z80eRoVefOT8SlgpH2xbcdEEZQ4Bh3JsgMt5/6 Es50sj4707NZ2TROGNaofuE= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: MYysWI7O5zoKoV+7wi6a/INNYXHcrq+jHPO21TMbntC2 1488011076 Received: from fujitsu.shahaf.local2 (bzq-109-65-57-127.red.bezeqint.net [109.65.57.127]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A1B2C24335; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by fujitsu.shahaf.local2 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3vVgrS1LcCz1NZ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:20:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:20:08 +0000 From: Daniel Shahaf To: Dane Kantner Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: SVN log --revision "{2017-02-23T18:53Z}:{2017-02-24T02:46:15.225107Z}" not parsing date correctly? Message-ID: <20170225082008.GA6559@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) archived-at: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:24:48 -0000 Dane Kantner wrote on Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 17:42:15 -0600: > True except in my environment those are non issue as we control it pretty > tightly with process (and I would assume most professional development > shops are under similar constraints?). I actually started with revision > numbers but I wanted to specifically use the date time and not revision > number for modularity of then also having the functionality to pull by date > time specifically in script. But I suppose I can go the route of using > revision number in the same function but also build a wrapper for that > other functionality to determine revision number at the time based on > provided date time. > > But nonetheless it seems like if the revision date range functionality is > going to be there it should work? > The «-r {DATE}» functionality is implemented by a server-side binary search on svn:date values, so it misbehaves when the svn:date across the entire history (of the whole repository, not just the target path) are not in ascending order. That's a known issue. It usually happens due to dump/load into an existing repository. Cheers, Daniel