> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Burba [mailto:ptburba_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 8 november 2012 17:13
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1407127 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: philip_at_apache.org [mailto:philip_at_apache.org]
> >> Sent: donderdag 8 november 2012 16:27
> >> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> >> Subject: svn commit: r1407127 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
> >>
> >> Author: philip
> >> Date: Thu Nov 8 15:26:37 2012
> >> New Revision: 1407127
> >>
> >
> >> Approved changes:
> >> =================
> >> +
> >> + * r1401915
> >> + Ignore file externals with mergeinfo when merging.
> >> + Justification:
> >> + Prevents a segfault,
> >> + see http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-10/0364.shtml
> >> + Branch:
> >> + ^/subversion/branches/1.7.x-r1401915
> >> + Votes:
> >> + +1: pburba, steveking, philip
> >>
> >
> > In my original review of this patch I asked if this issue was more generic
> than just file externals?
> >
> > What happens with switched files?
> >
> > (Did I miss an earlier answer?)
>
> Sorry Bert, I missed your reply to r1401915.
>
> Reintegrate merges and automatic merges which follow the same code
> path, don't allow the merge to proceed if there are switched subtrees
> present. You can use --ignore-ancestry to force the latter to run,
> but then mergetracking isn't active so the segfault is not an issue
> since it occurs find_unmerged_mergeinfo, which is only run in
> mergetracking aware "reintegrate" type merges. Alternatively you can
> use a 2-URL merge, but that doesn't hit the "reintegrate" merge code
> path either. So as of right now I don't see any further problems.
Thanks for the explanation,
In that case +1 on backporting :)
Bert
Received on 2012-11-08 17:21:32 CET