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

Re: svn commit: r1036686 - /subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:23:13 -0600

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I reopened issue #3641 and tweaked the test for that issue to
>> demonstrate this problem, see
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1036978.
>> So what to do about the r1036429 backport nomination?  With r1036429
>> in place, the sync of a replace without history within a copy results,
>> as described in my previous post, in a "svnsync: File not found:
>> revision 4, path '/trunk/H/H1/B/lambda'" error.  However, without
>> r1036429 the assert in replay.c is triggered, which strikes me as less
>> desirable.  Now what about r962378, which added the assert and is
>> already backported?  If we remove revert that change, then issue #3641
>> is alive and well on 1.6.x, but there is no assert, both of the
>> 'replaced-within-copied' variants give the 'File not found' error.
>> So unless somebody has a fix coming soon for issue #3641, I think we
>> should either backport r1036429 or veto it *and* revert  r962378.  The
>> third option, leaving  r962378 but not backporting r1036429 seems the
>> worst of all worlds, since we are introducing an assert.
> The current 1.6.15 already has a number of important fixes that I'm
> eager to get into our users' hands.  If there isn't an iminent fix for
> this issue, let's back out r962378 from the branch, and reroll
> (hopefully today?)

I went ahead and reverse merged the offending revisions in r1037005.
I think we're pretty stable now, and will probably roll 1.6.15 this
evening, barring any reason not to.

Received on 2010-11-19 21:23:51 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.