On 04/03/11 14:02, John Beranek wrote:
> On 04/03/11 13:48, Philip Martin wrote:
>> John Beranek <john_at_redux.org.uk> writes:
>>>> One thing you could try is identifying which revision causes the
>>>> problem. I'm guessing that r1072301 will PASS, it would be good to
>>>> know which is the first revision to FAIL.
>>> Hmm, no - r1072301 FAILs too.
>> But it can't be crashing in svn_temp_deserializer__resolve because that
>> function doesn't exist in r1072301. That implies it is not the
>> serialisation code that is causing the problem.
> Argh, apologies - I've got myself confused between different WCs due to
> use of 'pushd'. Indeed r1072301 is a PASS!
Results of an overly conscientious 'bisect':
0) 1072301 PASS
1) 1074601 FAIL
2) 1073451 FAIL
3) 1072876 FAIL
4) 1072588 FAIL
5) 1072444 FAIL
6) 1072372 FAIL
7) 1072336 FAIL
8) 1072318 no file changes
9) 1072309 no file changes
10) 1072302 no file changes, i.e. FAIL
John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot.
http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake
Received on 2011-03-04 15:34:01 CET