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

Issue #3119 - File '...' already exists" (Regression since 1.5.0)

From: Bert Huijben <rhuijben_at_open.collab.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:29:46 +0100

Hi,

Restarting this topic in a new thread:
(This topic original hijacked a few others)

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3119

Reproduction script on:
http://subversion.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/958/issue-3
119-1.sh
== <snippet>==
mkdir Data
svn co ${URL} Data/wc
mkdir Data/wc/tags
mkdir Data/wc/trunk
mkdir Data/wc/trunk/dir
cp /dev/null Data/wc/trunk/dir/file.cpp
${SVN} add Data/wc/t*
${SVN} ci -m"test" Data/wc

echo "ABC" >> Data/wc/trunk/dir/file.cpp

${SVN} ci -m"test" Data/wc

# Using http:// only, the next command fails with this error:
#
# subversion/libsvn_client/copy.c:1319: (apr_err=175005)
# svn: Commit failed (details follow):
# subversion/libsvn_ra_neon/commit.c:1036: (apr_err=175005)
# svn: File '/ms/repos/tags/V1.0.0/dir/file.cpp' already exists
#
${SVN} copy -m"tagging" Data/wc/trunk ${URL}/tags/V1.0.0
== </snippet> ==

Karl performed a diagnosis in:
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-10/0829.shtml

And I added some addition research in
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-12/0309.shtml

Other references to this issue include
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-11/0581.shtml
and http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-11/0603.shtml

It looks like r31692 introduced the regression described in issue #3119,
when fixing issue #2939 by moving a check on whether a node exists from
the HEAD url to the work url. (It was merged to 1.5.x before 1.5.1)

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2939

"Basically, it's possible for tools like gvn and svnmucc to create
revisions which *cannot* be svnsync'd over http -- unless we apply this
fix."

The serf fix in r31695 looks like a much better fix of this issue (as it
really checks for the deleted case described in #2939), but this doesn't
map to the neon way of doing things.

Could somebody with more neon knowledge please look at this issue and
help me determine whether it would be a wise decision to revert r31692
to fix the normal client?

It would reintroduce the issue that is only triggerable with gvn,
svnmucc or another custom application, which should then be fixed in
another way.

Thanks,
        Bert

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=985114
Received on 2008-12-16 19:04:09 CET

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