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

Re: svn commit: r1336475 - in /subversion/branches/1.7.x: ./ STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/client.h subversion/libsvn_client/externals.c subversion/libsvn_client/status.c

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 12:52:36 +0300

Bert Huijben wrote on Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:26:18 +0200:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: svn-role_at_apache.org [mailto:svn-role_at_apache.org]
> > Sent: donderdag 10 mei 2012 6:03
> > To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r1336475 - in /subversion/branches/1.7.x: ./ STATUS
> > subversion/libsvn_client/client.h subversion/libsvn_client/externals.c
> > subversion/libsvn_client/status.c
> >
> > Author: svn-role
> > Date: Thu May 10 04:02:53 2012
> > New Revision: 1336475
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1336475&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Merge r1335104 from trunk:
> >
> > * r1335104
> > Avoid a sometimes very expensive operation in svn status' external
> > processing. (issue #4178)
> > Justification:
> > See the "svn status <file> is slow under a large check-out" on
> > users{_AT_}subversion.apache.org
> > Votes:
> > +1: rhuijben, stsp, philip
> > >>>>>>> .r1336474
>
>
> ^^^ This doesn't look right.
>

Note: the merge itself is correct.

> What happened?
>

Given that this is r1336475 and the problem is a conflict marker of
r1336474, I assume the conflict marker was generated during 'svn up'.
I don't understand how the commit succeeded if the update had conflicted.

> Bert
>
>
Received on 2012-05-10 11:53:19 CEST

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