On 03.06.2015 14:24, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> 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.
See r1683311; I believe error reporting is consistent now. Adding
complex logic to the deprecated function isn't such a good idea, IMO.
-- Brane
Received on 2015-06-03 14:35:58 CEST