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

Re: Looks like wrong value for SVN_VER_REVISION in SWIG bindings for Python and Ruby?

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:35:20 +0200

r1211582 should make things better.

I think the nightly releases were also affected by this bug, in which
case tonight's nightly roll should confirm the fix.

http://subversion.apache.org/source-code.html#nightlies

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 19:56, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 19:53, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 11:43, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:23:30AM -0400, Shane Turner wrote:
> > > >> Should I open a bug report to have the packages regenerated,
> > > >
> > > > No. Releases are never regenerated. That would invalidate signatures
> > > > developers sent for the release.[*]
> > > >
> > > > We'll have to figure out the source of the problem and then try
> > > > to avoid it in future releases.
> > >
> > > It may be related to the sed problem we were having in the 1.7 RC
> > > series. Apparently one of scripts relied upon GNU sed which wasn't
> > > installed on people.apache.org. I had been using a custom install of
> > > it, but I thought Daniel had fixed the offending script to not require
> > > GNU sed. 1.7.2 represents the first release in which I relied upon
> > > the system sed, and not my custom one.
> > >
> >
> > r1159741
> >
> > However, SVN_VER_REVISION on the 1.7.2 tag is wrong.
>
> ... but SVN_VER_TAG, which incorporates the revnum, is right.
>
> Hmm.
>
Received on 2011-12-07 19:35:51 CET

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