[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn revision r0 question

From: Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:47:28 -0700

True, but bug is irrelevant to this one and doesn't imply that this bug should
exist.

Blair

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> -r {date} is already broken 5 ways to Sunday.... it assumes that the
> svn:date stamps are in time order, so it can do a binary search. This
> is definitely not a guarantee, as in the case of people merging
> projects' histories together via 'svnadmin load'. It's one of the
> oldest bugs in the bugtracker. :-)
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
>> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>> No, the docs are admittedly flawed in this way. If you use -r {date} and
>>> that code has to query a revision that has no datestamp, it raises
>>> SVN_ERR_FS_GENERAL to say that it was asked to lookup a date on a revision
>>> that doesn't have one. (But note that it doesn't raise
>>> SVN_ERR_FS_CORRUPT.)
>>> And the book doesn't mention this either (but as you might have seen, I
>>> just sent mail off to svnbook-dev@ to remind us to fix that).
>> Well, that's still broken. If you allow deleting it, then it should skip
>> past the revision or make some assumptions about the non-existence of the
>> date, not throw an error. Don't allow -r {date} to return it or something.
>>
>> Blair

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-28 02:48:12 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.