On 3 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 02.06.2015 20:05, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 02.06.2015 12:45, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Ben Reser wrote on Sun, May 31, 2015 at 14:28:39 -0700:
>>>> The 1.9.0-rc2 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing.
>>>> Please get the tarballs from
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>>>> and add your signatures there.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>> Note that Evgeny reported a regression in svn_repos_verify_fs2() in
>>> <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2015-05/0141.shtml>. No objections to
>>> moving forward with rc2, but as that issue is a regression, we'll need
>>> an rc3 that fixes it.
>> Yes ... and the patch has been reviewed but not committed. I believe it
>> only needs a couple tweaks (fixing an "if" condition and removing the
>> unused error code).
>
> I have a more complete fix based on Evgeny's patch, running tests now.
> It turns out that we still need a new error code for the summary
> results, but with a different meaning and therefore different name.
> Renaming it had a positive side effect as it turned out that we were
> emitting the SVN_ERR_REPOS_CORRUPTED error from FSFS and FSX instead of
> the correct SVN_ERR_FS_CORRUPT.
>
Another option would be to require notify_func for
svn_repos_verify_fs3() and always report errors through notify_func.
This would make error reporting consistent whether keep_going TRUE or
FALSE. For svn_repos_verify_fs2() we could create compat notify_func
handler that converts notifications to errors.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2015-06-03 14:25:01 CEST