[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: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 09:27:59 -0400

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that is the revision I meant.

Paul
Received on 2010-04-01 15:28:25 CEST

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