"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
> On 02/09/2012 05:22 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wright_at_wandisco.com> writes:
>>> Is there any sense of closure on the serf+windows test failure on the
>>> 1.7.x branch? My sense is that the failure does *not* expose a new
>>> bug on the branch, but rather smokes out an existing one.
>> That's my view as well. svnrdump has a bug that causes it to rely on
>> the server responding to serf's series HTTP requests in a particular
>> order. It's not a new bug.
> Has that actually been established? I mean, if all svnrdump is doing is
> expecting ra_serf to honor the well-established, well-documented, but
> ra_serf-flaunting Ev1 editor drive ordering rules ... is that really
> svnrdump's bug?
svnrdump doesn't handle postfix text deltas. It doesn't handle the
sequence open_file, open_file, ... close_file, close_file. I don't
know whether it's the cause of this particular problem but the fact that
we are seeing an ordering bug is not surprising. I don't think we have
made any explicit changes to server ordering so the bug is probably not
new in 1.7.3 or even 1.7. It's just the usual things that affect server
ordering, the exact build, setup, machine load, etc.
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
Received on 2012-02-09 17:51:12 CET