On Feb 7, 2008 1:03 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>
> 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
You may be right. All I did was stop the test after setup, preventing
the cleanup. The
contents of the repos/db/fs-type was "fsfs." Seemed reasonable to say it was an
fsfs based repo. Is there a more reliable way to determine?
> 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.
>
Passing here also. Thanks.
--
Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-08 07:17:10 CET