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

RE: svn commit: r1411982 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/commit_util.c subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:36:43 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: svn-role_at_apache.org [mailto:svn-role_at_apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 21 november 2012 05:02
> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1411982 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ STATUS
> subversion/libsvn_client/commit_util.c subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
>
> Author: svn-role
> Date: Wed Nov 21 04:01:41 2012
> New Revision: 1411982
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1411982&view=rev
> Log:
> Reintegrate the 1.6.x-rep_write_cleanup branch:
>
> * r1403964, r1403982, r1410106, r1410203
> Make fs_fs properly cleanup after a failed transmission of a representation.
> Justification:
> Read errors can create problems for users of the WANdisco replicator
> which does retry requests. Can result in garbage representations in the
> rev file.
> Notes:

> Branch is required since our client code needs a small tweak to deal
> with pool lifetimes to make the fix work properly with ra_local. We'd
> made a similar change with wcng in 1.7 already.

What would be the effect of *not* patching the client?

What impact does this have on other users of the fs/repos apis?

In other words: Is this a breaking change that we shouldn't port back to 1.6 clients and try to patch server only?

        Bert
Received on 2012-11-21 10:37:25 CET

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