From the peanut gallery: as long as svn1.7 errors out, but doesn't
corrupt any of the data or metadata, perhaps that's something we're
willing to live with?
Presumably the user would have a 1.8 client around to solve the conflict
with.
Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 21:14:07 +0200:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:03:47PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > on the same working copy. E.g. a 1.7 client might run into tree conflicts
> > which it cannot understand because a 1.8 client flagged a conflict involving
> > a move. I believe we should bump to avoid such problems.
>
> FYI, here is what this looks like:
>
> With trunk:
>
> $ svn status
> ! C alpha
> > local moved away and edited, incoming delete upon update
> A + alpha2
> Summary of conflicts:
> Tree conflicts: 1
>
> With 1.7.x:
>
> $ svn status
> subversion/svn/status-cmd.c:344: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/svn/util.c:981: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_client/status.c:490: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:1200: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:249: (apr_err=155016)
> subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:130: (apr_err=155016)
> svn: E155016: Unknown enumeration value in tree conflict description
>
> I don't see a way to avoid this problem for 1.7 clients, apart from either
> reverting the tree conflict description changes or bumping the format.
Received on 2012-06-25 23:24:16 CEST