> -----Original Message-----
> From: hwright_at_apache.org [mailto:hwright_at_apache.org]
> Sent: maandag 4 januari 2010 17:17
> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES
> STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
> subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c
> subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test.c
>
> Author: hwright
> Date: Mon Jan 4 16:16:23 2010
> New Revision: 895677
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=895677&view=rev
> Log:
> Reintegrate the 1.6.x-r39019 branch:
>
> * r879093
> Fix bug where svn_[rangelist|mergeinfo]_[merge|intersect|remove|diff]
> APIs can modify their *non*-output arguments.
> Justification:
> No reports of this causing any problems that I know of, which is
> probably due to the fact that users of an API like svn_mergeinfo_merge
> typically only care about the output arguments. The new C tests added
> to mergeinfo-test.c clearly demonstrate the bug.
> Branch:
> Resolves a minor conflict in libsvn_client/merge.c where the code
> changed was refactored on trunk.
> ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r39019
> The relevant commit on the branch is r879175.
> Votes:
> +1: pburba, julianfoad, rhuijben
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/ (props changed)
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES (props changed)
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test.c
>
> Propchange: subversion/branches/1.6.x/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- svn:mergeinfo (original)
> +++ svn:mergeinfo Mon Jan 4 16:16:23 2010
> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38572:875006-875011
> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38799:875225-875262
> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38927:875347-875521
> +/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r39019:879132-895676
> +/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r39109:879131
What happens here ^^^^
I think you triggered an old bug here that should be resolved by a previous merge?
Bert
Received on 2010-01-04 18:19:17 CET