On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 15:04, <hwright_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: hwright
>> Date: Tue May 3 19:04:24 2011
>> New Revision: 1099193
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1099193&view=rev
>> For info, don't fake a completely bogus revision for added nodes, just
>> report an invalid revision.
>> In updating the tests, I noticed we report "Resource is not under version
>> control" in the XML for nodes with invalid revnums. While this isn't
>> strictly true for added nodes, I'll leave that fix for future change.
> Eh? Shouldn't those tests be marked with XFail, rather than BAD OUTPUT?
I'm not sure what you mean. The tests currently pass.
My point was that our xml generation assumes an invalid revnum means
that thing isn't versioned. While added nodes now correctly report an
invalid revnum, they are versioned (or at least we've historically
treated them as such, even though they haven't yet been committed to
So spitting out "this thing is not versioned" isn't technically
correct, since the node is still under Subversion's control, but it's
the best we do right now. I claim the problem is orthogonal to the
above change, and should be fixed in the command line client.
Received on 2011-05-03 21:36:24 CEST