Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:31:36AM +0000, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
>> > * The difference that's supposed to cause Philip's script to work as
>> > advertised is that svn_repos_fs_change_rev_prop4() uses the same
>> > propvalue to compute the ACTION parameter and to pass as the "old
>> > propvalue" to the FS for atomicity.
>> > I'm too sleepy right now to determine whether Philip's script will
>> > actually work as advertised given this server-side change, so just
>> > throwing it out there for now.
>> The server side change hasn't been applied to the 1.6 branch AFAIK.
>> That means that the ACTION parameter in the hook script is not reliable
>> and so the script doesn't fix the problem.
>> The obstacle to applying the server side fix to the 1.6 branch is that
>> it changes the behaviour of server and so could be considered a
>> regression, although that same behaviour change could also be considered
>> an improvement.
> The scenario we're talking about is where people run a 1.7 server
> and use a 1.6 or earlier svnsync binary.
> I suppose in this case your hook script would help?
No, I don't think it does. Daniel's change introduced new protocol
elements to get the new atomic behaviour, a old client using the old
protocol still gets the old non-atomic behaviour.
We could change the behaviour associated with the old protocol, and then
we could backport that relatively small change to 1.6, and that would
allow the script to work. That would be the regression/improvement I
> If not, the current draft of the 1.7 release notes will need to be adjusted.
Received on 2011-01-13 11:57:06 CET