On Monday 31 October 2005 19:43, Joshua Varner wrote:
> On 10/29/05, John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 29 October 2005 13:29, bt c wrote:
> > > Ok, what I just did was:
> > >
> > > svnadmin dump repo -r1:62 --incremental > repo_1to62.dmp
> > > svnadmin dump repo -r64:157 --incremental > repo_64to157.dmp
> > > // Rename repo to something else.
> > > svnadmin create repo
> > >
> > > svnadmin load repo < repo_1to62.dmp
> > >
> > > svnadmin load repo < repo_64to157.dmp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My understanding is that I will not know what are the changes from 62
> > > to 63 now. Instead I am seeing only changes from 62 to 64 now.
> >
> > Correct. Don't forget to get a whole new WC though. Since the version
> > numbers changed, you're old working copy is now out of kilter with what
> > is actually in the repository.
>
> This may or may not work. Because you did an incremental dump at revision
> 64, the base that those diffs assume is the repository at revision 63.
> So changes to those files may not apply cleanly to the copy of the file
> that existed at revision 62.
Good catch! I completely missed the '--incremental' in there. The best way
would've been to use a full dump.
> Did you try to dump or svnadmin verify the new repository. It may work if
> the changes are small enough in rev 63 or just happen to work out that the
> diffs still apply, but you might want to check rev 64 to make sure it is
> clean.
>
> You could try this
> svnadmin dump repo -r1:62 --incremental > repo_1to62.dmp
> svnadmin dump repo -r65:157 --incremental > repo_65to157.dmp
>
> // get a working copy that was valid from a revision after 63 and
> // reverse merge back to 64 - call this wc64
>
> // Rename repo to something else.
>
> svnadmin create repo
> svnadmin load repo < repo_1to62.dmp
>
> // check out the repo, then copy over changes from wc64
> svn commit -m "Bridge gap" wc64
>
> svnadmin load repo < repo_65to157.dmp
>
> This way you don't have any holes. I doubt you could do a non-incremental
> dump b/c of the corruption. But if you are not having any problems, you
> may have been lucky enough that revision 63 was small or happened to be
> something that caused no problems.
I suspect this was the case.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 1 11:08:47 2005