Tony Overfield wrote:
> I should have been more persistent, but I previously reported
> this to the users list.
>
> See "Unordered commit dates from ordinary commits",
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-09/0599.shtml
From that message:
> While committing a long-running commit, if a shorter commit is started
> and completed before the long-running commit has finished, it creates
> unordered svn:date properties.
[...]
> I am using Windows XP with:
> svn, version 1.2.3 (r15833)
> compiled Aug 19 2005, 23:10:39
Thanks for reporting it here now. It sounds like that's the bug found and
fixed recently (in trunk r18078) that's specific to FSFS; Berkeley DB
repositories don't have that bug.
The fix does not appear to have been back-ported to the 1.3.x or 1.2.x
releases. I suggest we propose it for both. Yes, other committers?
> The book states that the svn:date property is set when the transaction
> is created, but wouldn't it be better to use the time at which the final
> revision number is obtained?
Ah, the book is misleading. It's strictly correct in what it says, as the
"svn:date" property is initially added at creation time (useful for an
administrator looking at the transaction before it is committed or if it fails
to be committed), but the book fails to say that "svn:date" is updated when the
transaction is committed.
Would you care to make a patch to correct the book XML file (en/book/ch05.xml,
section "svn.reposadmin.basics.revprops")?
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 17 01:06:50 2006