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

Re: 1.5.x currently doesn't build

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:06:46 -0600

Julian Foad wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 13:50 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> 1.5.x currently doesn't build due to the merge in r34734, with this log message:
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> r34734 | hwright | 2008-12-16 12:04:52 -0600 (Tue, 16 Dec 2008) | 15 lines
>> Merge r34385, r34393 from trunk:
>> * r34385, r34393
>> Fix broken merge when the merge target's natural history includes
>> resurrections.
>> Notes:
>> r34385 is a new test. r34393 is the fix.
>> Justification:
>> This problem was encountered 'in the wild' - see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-11/0618.shtml. When encountered
>> cherry harvest merges are completely broken.
>> Votes:
>> +1: pburba, stylesen, cmpilato
>> It turns out that r34393 introduced a call to
>> svn_mergeinfo__get_range_endpoints(), which was introduced on trunk in r34306.
>> r34306 is currently awaiting review as part of the
>> 1.5.x-reintegrate-improvements branch.
>> I created the 1.5.x-build-fixes branch to attempt to fix the build, but I think
>> that merging the reintegrate-improvements branch would be the better solution.
> On 1.5.x-build-fixes I get:
> subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c:1501: no previous prototype for
> 'svn_mergeinfo__catalog_to_formatted_string'
> subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c:1565: no previous prototype for
> 'svn_mergeinfo__to_formatted_string'
> Those two functions appear to be redundant in the 1.5.x-build-fixes
> branch. That means in one sense that the warnings are harmless, but in
> another sense it's wrong to include them because they are not part of
> the fix. They were added to that branch as part of r34740 and then a
> further change r34741 was made to support them.
> Shouldn't we revert the bad merge straight away? All this proposing to
> fix it, and voting on the fix, while the branch is still broken, is
> getting in the way of reviewing further back-ports.

My preference (and the correct way to do it, IIUC) is to merge the reintegrate
improvements, which includes r34306 in its entirety, to 1.5.x. That branch is
still lacking a +1, so maybe we should focus review efforts there. We could
revert the merge, but if we do that, we should also revert r34748, which fixed
test failures introduced as a result of the merge (the ol' exit_code problem).



Received on 2008-12-17 16:07:18 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.