Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 11:47 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> David Glasser wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 2008 11:24 AM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 2008 11:05 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>>>>> Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2008 12:37 PM, <cmpilato_at_tigris.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Author: cmpilato
>>>>>>> Date: Tue Jan 29 12:37:29 2008
>>>>>>> New Revision: 29076
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> Bump the libsvn_fs_base format number, and disallow node-origin and
>>>>>>> mergeinfo calculations and queries on older versions of the schema.
>>>>>>> Honor the --pre-1.5-compatible flag provided by 'svnadmin create', and
>>>>>>> don't auto-upgrade the schema.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> After this commit this Ruby bindings test (annotated and slightly modified for
>>>>>> clarity) fails...
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps this is not a reasonable test? Or did the bindings test catch
>>>>>> something?
>>>>> I think the bindings caught something, and I know what it was they caught.
>>>>> Out of curiousity, do the tests only fail for BDB-backed repositories?
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. Only running against fsfs repositories.
>>> But r29076 was the change that made it fail? That's odd, since it
>>> only touches libsvn_fs_base.
>> Indeed. And I can read BDB logic and see where I think the problem actually is.
>>
>
> I went back and forth between r29075 and r29076 several times trying to figure
> things out and it failed everytime with r29076. I'm about to have to go back to
> work so I won't be able to respond quickly, but if there is some additional info
> I can provide....
I believe you are mistaken about the FSFS-ness of the tests. When I made
the patch "where I think the problem actually [was]" in BDB, I saw two
hotcopy-related Ruby test failures go away.
Fix committed in r29218.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-02-07 10:04:05 CET