The problem is that I didnĺt break real changes, but only changed the
reporting of entry-prop changes (think: last_*) as real changes.
That leaves a probable real bug somewhere else where we skip the processing
of the real changes (somewhere below the entry prop changes) without even
looking at them.
This resolved many cases where there were no real changes (most testcases
didn't document changes on the nodes that were reported as changes before),
but as you confirmed also showed that we somehow relied on seeing these non
Paul, can you reinstate the the cases where there are true changes as XFail
tests so I can start looking where we skip the real (property or text)
Sent from Windows Mail
*From:* Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
*Sent:* December 21, 2012 5:20 PM
*To:* Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
*Subject:* Re: svn commit: r1424469 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM, <rhuijben_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1424469&view=rev
>> In the repository-repository diff handler: Don't retrieve pristine
>> properties when we already know that there are no differences to
>> report on them. By checking whether we really need the properties
>> we avoid about 1000 ra calls over running our test suite (ra local).
>> This also resolves many spurious merge changes that just change
>> entry props.
>> On top of that stop reporting entry prop only changes as a file/directory
>> change to avoid doing unneeded work in the merge and diff handling.
>> This fixes some issues identified when the merge code was updated to
>> do a better obstruction detection, as originally we just skipped these
>> non-changes there in the merge code.
>> It is possible that this obscures some tree conflicts which were
>> identified by entry prop changes that should have been detected by the
>> real change down the tree (which might have been skipped).
> This change breaks mergetracking. Let's walk-through just the test
> change above (please bear with me, this is a somewhat lengthy
> explanation, but stsp and julianf seem fine with this, so I want to be
> completely clear).
I am happy with the concept of the change as stated in the log message. I
haven't reviewed this change and I am not fine with the breakage. Thanks
for reviewing and catching this.
Received on 2012-12-21 17:35:26 CET