On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:14:34 -0800:
>> The docs for svn_fs_commit_txn() for read:
>> * @note Success or failure of the commit of @a txn is determined by
>> * examining the value of @a *new_rev upon this function's return. If
>> * the value is a valid revision number, the commit was successful,
>> * even though a non-_at_c NULL function return value may indicate that
>> * something else went wrong.
>> However, svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() will only run the post-commit hook if
>> SVN_NO_ERROR was returned:
>> /* Commit. */
>> SVN_ERR(svn_fs_commit_txn(conflict_p, new_rev, txn, pool));
>> /* Run post-commit hooks. Notice that we're wrapping the error
>> with a -specific- errorcode, so that our caller knows not to try
>> and abort the transaction. */
>> if ((err = svn_repos__hooks_post_commit(repos, *new_rev, pool)))
>> return svn_error_create
>> (SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED, err,
>> _("Commit succeeded, but post-commit hook failed"));
>> return SVN_NO_ERROR;
>> Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
>> new_rev is a valid rev?
> That matters when NEW_REV is a valid rev but there is a non-SVN_NO_ERROR
> return value. When can that happen?
> (just on Saturday I drafted a patch to make failing to update
> rep-cache.db after the commit itself succeeded not be considered
> a fatal error; that would be one case when that can happen.)
Was the patch going to swallow the error? If there is a deployment issue causing rep-cache.db not to be updated, I would like to know about it.
Received on 2010-12-20 21:03:55 CET