[ this is largely a duplicate of a previous mail. I sent it because tigris
complained about the first mail and claimed it wouldn't go through. ]
Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Bert Huijben wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I've been looking at this a bit today, but haven't gotten very far. I think
> this is related to the issue maven users have been having and described here:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-406
>
> I'm attempting to reproduce using the jira bug description. It'd be good to fix
> this, of course, and other eyes are welcomed to look at it.
>
> Thanks,
> -Hyrum
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=985149
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=985163
Received on 2008-12-16 19:58:17 CET