Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> writes:
> That does fail on 1.6.6, better replicating the error Hyrum
> encountered, but it fails simply because the self-referential
> mergeinfo is never considered. As I was saying in IRC this morning
> this is a case where one bug (rel pathed mergeinfo not handled
> correctly by svn_mergeinfo_* APIs) allows us to avoid a different bug
> (reintegrate code doesn't tolerate self-referential mergeinfo in some
> cases). In most cases the first bug is going to cause problems, not
> solve them.
OK.
>> svn merge --reintegrate ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r40452_at_891008
>>
>> the 1.6.x client gives an error:
>>
>> svn: '/repos/asf/!svn/bc/875961/subversion/branches/1.6.x' path not found
>>
>> and the 1.6.4 client doesn't:
>>
>> --- Merging differences between repository URLs into '../src-1.6':
>> G ../src-1.6/CHANGES
>> G ../src-1.6
>
> That is interesting about 1.6.4, I'll have to look into what changed
> from 1.6.4 to 1.6.6 that would account for this.
1.6.x is the prospective 1.6.7 with the r40452 branch merged. I
expect 1.6.4 (that's my system version) and 1.6.6 to be the same.
>> As I stated in a mail yesterday, the bug on the Subversion repository
>> is triggered by the mergeinfo paths not having a leading '/' in
>> addition to the other bogus data. It doesn't happen with the old
>> collab repository where the paths do have a leading '/'.
>
> Regarding what you found with the old repos: The revision offset
> between our old repos revs and the ASF repos is 840074 right?
>
> So shouldn't the mergeinfo on this path in the old repos,
>
>>svn pg svn:mergeinfo https://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.6.x-r40452/CHANGES@40513
> ...
> /trunk/CHANGES:2-1281,35888-40052,40088,40152,40451-40452
>
> differ from from the new repos,
>
>>svn pg svn:mergeinfo https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r40452/CHANGES@880587
> ...
> subversion/trunk/CHANGES:836421-837700,872307-876471,876507,876571,880525-880526
>
> only by the offset? The fact that it doesn't is troubling, to say the
> least, and might also explain why you got different results with the
> old repos.
Yes, I think you are right and I don't understand it.
--
Philip
Received on 2009-12-18 20:28:27 CET