On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:34:43AM -0600, Kevin Radke wrote:
>>> (I'm moving this conversation from users to dev, since I have
>>> convinced myself a regression was introduced in r1028108)
>>> See: http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2010-12/0265.shtml
>>> log -v -g --xml http://server/repo/path commands will now fail for
>>> "complex" histories that contain file renames.
>>> The client sees:
>>> svn: REPORT of '/repo/!svn/bc/1234/path/in/repo': Could not read chunk
>>> size: connection was closed by server (http://server)
>>> The server logs:
>>> [Wed Dec 15 15:48:18 2010] [error] [client 192.168.1.1] File not
>>> found: revision 5678, path '/path/in/repo/file.txt' [404, #160013]
>>> (The file was named oldfilename.txt in r5678, because it was renamed
>>> in r7890. Something isn't using the correct name when more than
>>> MAX_OPEN_HISTORIES have been found.)
>>> The only source file modified in this commit was subversion/libsvn_reops/log.c
>>> A few questions:
>>> 1) Does setting info->oldpool and info->newpool to NULL around lines
>>> 1113 potentially leak memory?
>>> 2) What is info->first_time used for? It seems to always be set to
>>> true in the loop in get_path_histories() and then reset in
>>> 3) Increasing MAX_OPEN_HISTORIES to 128 "fixes" my test repository,
>>> but isn't the true fix.
>> Thanks for bringing this to dev@.
>> If it's not too much of a bother, could you also file an issue for this
>> and set the target milestone to 1.7.0 so we don't forget about it?
>> This milestone doesn't mean that a fix for 1.6.x won't be made.
>> It just exploits the fact that currently most people are looking at
>> issues scheduled for 1.7.0 :)
> I milestone 1.7.0 issue also means that it's a blocker for the 1.7.x
> branch, iiuc.
Created issue 3789 and set target milestone 1.7.0.
Received on 2011-01-25 22:46:36 CET