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

Re: 1.6.10 up for testing/signing - merge tests failing

From: Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:23:43 +0100

On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 08:52 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >>> > 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
> >>> >
> >>> > http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
> >>>
> >>> For me, merge_tests.py 45 77 79 124 126 all fail, on serf/fsfs.
> >>
> >> If I roll the 1.6.x branch back to r929629, it passes.

D'oh, but trying again with r929629, running them individually, they all
fail except 77 which pass:

[[[
$ svn-py-test merge 45 77 79 124 126 --http-library=serf
--url=http://localhost:12843 --no-cleanup
[...]
FAIL: merge_tests.py 45: target inherits mergeinfo from nearest
ancestor
PASS: merge_tests.py 77: subtrees added after start of merge range are
ok
[...]
]]]

Don't know what's up with my testing to cause this discrepancy between
the full 'make davautocheck' and individual tests, and haven't yet
repeated them.

> The tests pass for me over ra_neon, but all except 77 fail over
> ra_serf.

> > The likely culprit would seem r929603...can you confirm that is
> > where the failure starts?

You mean r929630 I believe. Not confirmed yet.

> > Do you see the same failures on trunk?

No I don't see those failures on trunk, and I don't see them in 1.6.9.

- Julian
Received on 2010-04-01 15:24:15 CEST

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