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

Re: 1.7.0-rc2 up for signing / testing

From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:44:16 +0200

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Philip Martin
<philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Status against revision:      2
>> =============================================================
>> Expected 'gamma' and actual 'gamma' in status tree are different!
>> =============================================================
>> EXPECTED NODE TO BE:
>> =============================================================
>>  * Node name:   gamma
>>     Path:       svn-test-work\working_copies\depth_tests-18-1\A\D\gamma
>>     Contents:   None
>>     Properties: {}
>>     Attributes: {'status': 'M ', 'wc_rev': '1'}
>>     Children:  None (node is probably a file)
>> =============================================================
>> ACTUAL NODE FOUND:
>> =============================================================
>>  * Node name:   gamma
>>     Path:       svn-test-work\working_copies\depth_tests-18-1\A\D\gamma
>>     Contents:   None
>>     Properties: {}
>>     Attributes: {'status': '  ', 'wc_rev': '1'}
>>     Children:  None (node is probably a file)
>
> Do you still have the working copy?  The file hasn't been committed
> (still at r1) but is unmodified.  Perhaps it's just that the timestamps
> match and the text modification is still present?

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your feedback.

No, I'm afraid I don't have the working copy anymore, so there's no
way to be sure.

I should have been more careful, but when I saw that test failing, I
just couldn't believe it, because I had successfully run the entire
test suite on the 1.7.x branch just before that. So I decided to rerun
the depth_tests, just to make sure it failed. Which wasn't very smart,
because then the test succeeded, and the broken working copy was gone
:-(.

Anyway, it may be a reasonable hypothesis. I'm not sure if it will
ever happen again on my system. If this is really the cause, does that
mean that it's a problem for Subversion, or that it's more of a
test-suite problem (that it should sleep some time to make sure the
timestamps differ, or something like that)?

-- 
Johan
Received on 2011-08-30 22:45:06 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.