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

Re: svn_fs_commit_txn and svn_repos_fs_commit_txn inconsistency

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:57:27 +0200

Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:47:40 -0800:
> On 12/21/10 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 20:40:02 +0200:
>>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
>>>> 4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
>>>> svn_fs_commit_txn()'s error as the parent followed by the
>>>> SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED error as a child? This seems to be
>>>> the standard ordering of chained errors. On the other hand, it makes it
>>>> harder to find a post-commit script error.
>>> Actually, it will make it impossible to detect post-commit errors over
>>> ra_dav, since that RA layer marshals only the outermost error code in an
>>> error chain.
>> This is now<http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3767>.
>> (Details are partly from memory, partly from quick testing I re-did today.)
> While we're opening tickets, I found an issue with
> svn_repos_parse_fns2_t.close_revision(), it doesn't support the
> documented svn_fs_commit_txn() contract, I opened this to track it and
> put it in 1.7-consider, as it shouldn't block 1.7, but it would be nice
> to have it in there.
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3768

svn_repos_parse_fns2_t is about parsing a dumpstream, not about
committing the expressed revisions to some repository, so I don't
understand why the "NEW_REV" parameter belongs there and not in

> Blair
Received on 2010-12-22 03:00:23 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.