[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn revision r0 question

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:13:02 -0700

Yeah... it does seem that we can make this part better.

As Mike also noted, the ordering can be totally busted. The Apache
repository is a great example of that.

Cheers,
-g

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>
>> No, the docs are admittedly flawed in this way. If you use -r {date} and
>> that code has to query a revision that has no datestamp, it raises
>> SVN_ERR_FS_GENERAL to say that it was asked to lookup a date on a revision
>> that doesn't have one. (But note that it doesn't raise
>> SVN_ERR_FS_CORRUPT.)
>> And the book doesn't mention this either (but as you might have seen, I
>> just sent mail off to svnbook-dev@ to remind us to fix that).
>
> Well, that's still broken. If you allow deleting it, then it should skip
> past the revision or make some assumptions about the non-existence of the
> date, not throw an error. Don't allow -r {date} to return it or something.
>
> Blair
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-28 18:13:17 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.