Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
I’m going to assume that you created the file (in the repo) from a Linux or
Windows machine,
as if you had created it from a Mac there should be no problem.
This is a known issue with Subversion (see
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2464 ).
There’s currently no full solution to this though some people use the svn
from macports with the +unicode_path patch.
[See issue #152 especially if you are using Subversion 1.7.]
Original comment by chris...@gmail.com
on 1 Feb 2012 at 5:07
Thanks a lot for your reply.
I've used wandisco release of 1.7.2 svn.
svn status works well, just svnx show the problem.
Now I've installed macports version using the suggested patch, and both svnx
and svn status has the problem, even if I've just make a fresh check out.
Original comment by versante...@gmail.com
on 2 Feb 2012 at 10:54
> I've used wandisco release of 1.7.2 svn.
> svn status works well, just svnx show the problem.
I believe the WANdisco build of Subversion 1.7.2 is just an unaltered compiling
of the standard Subversion code.
I don’t understand why `svn status` and an svnX working copy window would
show different results as svnX actually uses `svn status`.
Are you sure svnX is using the same Subversion (svnX > Preferences…) and you
are looking at the same WC?
If you have reproducible results where svnX shows different (wrong) results
compared with `svn status` please provide details.
>Now I've installed macports version using the suggested patch, and both svnx
and svn status has the problem, even if I've just make a fresh check out.
Did you read issue #152?
I ‘suggest’ NOT using the unicode_path patch with Subversion 1.7.x as IT
DOES NOT WORK CORRECTLY.
Original comment by chris...@gmail.com
on 2 Feb 2012 at 2:00
I've reverted my configuration, now I see that both svn status & svnx has the
same behaviour maybe I've made a mistake, anyway I can't reproduce it.
Thanks,
Original comment by versante...@gmail.com
on 7 Feb 2012 at 10:25
I’m closing this as there appears to be no reproducible problem.
If you can reproduce it then please reopen.
Original comment by chris...@gmail.com
on 1 Mar 2012 at 1:40
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
versante...@gmail.com
on 1 Feb 2012 at 11:07