Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 09:29:18AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > > It looks like it might be complaining about the content of the svn:date
> > > revprop on that revision, though I can't see anything wrong with it via
> > > DAV (I assume ViewCVS uses ra_local, though).
> >
> > ViewCVS uses direct repository access via the Subversion Python
> > bindings (but *can* use any of the three RA layers, too, at the cost
> > of years of your life waiting for responses).
> >
> > But yeesh -- I can't see anything wrong with that date, either.
> > Weirdness. Guess I've some debugging to do today... Thanks for
> > pointing this out, Malcolm!
> >
>
> svn_string_t (which svn_fs_txn_prop() [et al] uses) are counted strings.
> I wondered if this is due to the difference between a property containing
> "2005-10-25T14:52:07.936032Z" (r17005) and one containing something like
> "2005-10-25T15:33:29.047905Z\0" (r17006). Of course, I've no way to
> test that theory, since for all I know, ra_dav strips out everything
> following a NUL byte.
Yeah, I thought this might be the possibility, but 'svn pget --strict'
reveals no trailing NUL. (And besides, why would we suddenly start
seeing trailing NULs in one revision's datestamp and not others?)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 27 18:31:06 2005