[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: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 20:52:31 +0200

Thanks for checking, Shane. I note that you checked r1211287, which is
prior to my yesterday's fix (r1211582), so the bogus values are expected.

Shane Turner wrote on Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 14:39:03 -0400:
> Looks like the problem is still there:
>
> $ grep SVN_VER_REVISION
> subversion-{1.7.1,1.7.2,nightly}/subversion/include/svn_version.h
> subversion-1.7.1/subversion/include/svn_version.h:#define
> SVN_VER_REVISION 1186859
> subversion-1.7.2/subversion/include/svn_version.h:#define
> SVN_VER_REVISION 0
> subversion-nightly/subversion/include/svn_version.h:#define
> SVN_VER_REVISION 0
>
> The nightly is http://ci.apache.org/projects/subversion/nightlies/dist/r1211287/subversion-nightly.tar.bz2
>
> Shane
>
> On 07/12/2011 2:35 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >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.
> >>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Shane Turner
>
> Senior Software Developer
> phone +1 (902) 406–8375 x1008
> email Shane.Turner_at_NewPace.ca <mailto:Shane.Turner_at_newpace.ca>
> aim <aim:GoIm?screenname=Shane.Turner_at_newpace.ca>/msn
> <msnim:chat?contact=Shane.Turner_at_newpace.ca>
> Shane.Turner_at_NewPace.ca
> <aim:GoIm?screenname=Shane.Turner_at_newpace.ca>
> skype saturnjct <skype:saturnjct>
>
Received on 2011-12-08 19:53:19 CET

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