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

Re: Including fixes to FSFS into meta-data-versioning? [Was: Re: PLEASE Help with Repository CORRUPTION!]

From: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2005-03-27 16:29:23 CEST

Saulius Grazulis wrote:
> On Saturday 26 March 2005 15:36, Josh Pieper wrote:
>> Congratulations, you have discovered a bug in FSFS. Fortunately, it
>> was only in the parsing routines, so your repository is fully intact.
>> The bug has been fixed in r13683 of Subversion's trunk and will
>> hopefully be backported to a 1.1.x release. In the meantime, I'm
>> sending you privately a link to a fully functional dump of your
>> repository.
>> Sorry for the trouble it has caused you,
>> Josh
> Great to hear this, I am impressed how fast the things get fixed here! :)
> Now, I am a bit worried about my repositories since I use FSFS, but I am
> currently running Phil's text-time branch (r13350q), and we are very happy
> with this functionality and rely on it.
> Now, staying on this branch, I will obviously miss your fix which I, ehh,
> would not like.
> Is there a chance that meta-data-versioning gets merged into the trunk, or
> do
> I need to merge it into my copy? The problem with merging is that it
> starts
> generating conflicts that need to be fixed manually, an the more the trunk
> changes, the more conflicts will emerge...
> I guess meta-data-versioning is quite usefull to many, and seems pretty
> stable
> at the moment.
> How should one proceed in such case?

Seemingly stable or not, it's still just a candidate patch.
You've backed yourself into an unpleasant corner here, relying on a feature
that is still quite some way from integration.
Even worse, you are using a branch based on trunk, which we do NOT recommend
for production use.
If you really need this feature, you need to assume the burden of applying
these changes to whatever real release version you choose.

John Szakmeister wrote:
> IIRC, Phil will be merging changes from trunk on roughly a weekly basis.
> This is so that when it's time to merge, all the conflicts will already
> have been taken care of. This is enforced in any way, so he may take a
> little longer, or perform it at a different interval.

Sorry, but in this case you remember incorrectly. The locking and ruby
branches were undergoing periodic merges, but no others were.
Moreover, I don't think the text-time branch should be undergoing merges at
this point. Better that it remain quiet and contain just the relevant
feature changes until a suitable amount of integration effort can be applied
to it post-1.2.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 27 16:32:45 2005

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.