On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike and I were discussing the changes I made in
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=927243 to fix
> issue #3020 and which were backported to 1.6.x. There is a regression
> in that fix and I am changing my vote to -1 and pulling it from 1.6.x
> (and today's roll of 1.6.10).
> The fix in r927243 addressed the problem of mergeinfo in a partial
> dump of a repository, specifically:
> We dump -r(X>1):Y from repos A then load that dump into repos B. If
> there is mergeinfo in the loaded revisions it may refer to revisions <
> X. r927423 strips out these ranges. This is fine if the partial dump
> of repos A is done in one step, e.g,
> svnadmin dump reposA -r200:300 > A.200.300.partial.dump
> svnadmin load reposB < A.200.300.partial.dump
> because those revisions don't refer to valid history re the
> mergeinfo's merge source.
> Unfortunately this fix breaks a (likely much more) common use case:
> Dumping a complete repository in multiple steps and then loading each
> chunk to the new repository, e.g.:
> svnadmin dump reposA -r0:100 > A.0.100.dump
> svnadmin dump reposA -r101:200 --incremental > A.101.200.dump
> svnadmin dump reposA -r201:300 --incremental > A.201.300.dump
> svnadmin load reposB < A.0.100.dump
> svnadmin load reposB < A.101.200.dump
> svnadmin load reposB < A.201.300.dump
> In this case, valid mergeinfo may be filtered from the 2nd and or 3rd load.
> I'll work on a fix that can handle both use cases, but for now I am
> changing my vote to -1 and reverting this backport.
And just so folks know, Paul's got the RM's blessing on this.
Received on 2010-03-31 16:14:14 CEST