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

Re: Vetos in 1.6.x branch -- and how they impact trunk

From: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 12:32:39 -0400

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> There are some vetos in the 1.6.x branch that seem like they are
> questioning the change, not just whether it was a candidate for
> backport.  What does that mean for trunk and 1.7?  Here are the items
> I am thinking of (leaving out the items that were vetoed only because
> they were not considered appropriate for a fix release):
>  * r921453, r927184, r927243
>   Fix reopened issue #3020 'Reflect dropped/renumbered revisions in
>   svn:mergeinfo data during svnadmin load'
>   Justification:
>     Prior to this fix, when loading a partial dump with mergeinfo, the
>     resulting mergeinfo in the target repository could refer to non-existent
>     revisions or revisions that have nothing to do with the merge source
>     in the original repository.  The original fix for issue assumed that
>     the dump stream was for a complete repository.
>   Notes:
>     r921453 and 927184 are tests, r927243 is the fix.
>   Branch:
>     ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue3020
>   Votes:
>     +1: kameshj
>     -1: pburba (There is a regression with this fix, see
>         http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-03/0716.shtml)

The primary "fix" for issue #3020, r927243, was reverted on trunk
(r936387). Issue #3020 then spawned a slew of partial fixes (25
separate changes). A few problems still exist but are not scheduled
to be fixed, see

I'd like to remove this nomination from STATUS since it makes no sense
to nominate a change that has been reverted, any objections?


P.S. None of these 25 fixes was backported to 1.6.x. Some are are not
suitable for backport because they introduce changes to dump's output
(e.g. r937033) but many probably could be backported. My memory is a
bit foggy on this, but IIRC I felt 1.7 was coming "real soon now" so
held off on backporting (it was/is going to be a bit of a beast to
backport and review). Backporting these has remained a low priority
on my TODO list. I'm happy to bump it up if we feel that is the right
course of action.
Received on 2011-05-18 18:33:10 CEST

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.