Now THAT would be embarrassing, wouldn't it? We remembered having done
the upgrade! Of course we did the upgrade!
I found the email I sent out that told everyone they had to be running
the 1.5.1 client by Friday, because on the following Monday the
repository would be upgraded to the 1.5 format. But I can't find any
email I sent out that said we actually did it. Some s$%t hit the fan
on Monday morning is my best guess.
My $REPOS/db/format file contains the single line that says "2".
I made a hotcopy of the repository and ran svnadmin upgrade on it,
then looked at its $REPOS/db/format file. It's single line says "3".
So no, we didn't do the upgrade. I guess now we know the telltale
signs, don't we?
My apologies to the list for the noise.
- Rush
On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
> I'm curious... did you run svnadmin upgrade and
> svn-populate-node-origina-index on your repository when you moved from
> 1.4 to 1.5 on the server? Also, you probably want to upgrade your
> server
> to 1.5.4. Some merging bugs were fixed in .2,.3,.4.
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rush Manbert [mailto:rush_at_manbert.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:12 PM
> To: subversion
> Subject: Re: More Merge Bad Behavior (with experimental results)
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Rush Manbert wrote:
>
>> I posted a few days ago about my problems merging either to a branch
>> from the trunk or from that branch back to the trunk.
>>
>> Now a colleague is seeing the same problem.
>>
>> He copied the trunk to a branch 3 days ago. We have been making
>> changes on the branch since then, and now we're finished. In the
>> meantime, some non-overlapping changes happened in the trunk. Now he
>> wants to merge the branch back into the trunk. Since he never needed
>> to synch changes in the trunk by merging, we don't need to do a
>> reintegration merge, so he tried this:
>> * Check out the trunk to ~/trunk_merge
>> * cd ~/trunk_merge
>> * svn merge URL_TO_BRANCH
>>
>> Svn thinks about this for a while, then says it wants to merge
>> revision 2 through 1633 to the WC. The branch was created at
>> revision 1634.
>>
>> This wants to do all sorts of crazy stuff, so we killed it, ran svn
>> revert -R ., then svn stat to be sure we had a pristine WC.
>>
>> Then we tried this merge command:
>> svn merge URL_TO_BRANCH -r1634:head --dry-run
>>
>> The output from this looks like it would do the right thing.
>>
>> This is the second time now that the merge wants to merge everything
>> from the beginning of the world (rev 2) through the revision just
>> before the branch was created (rev 1633), and we don't understand
>> why this is happening. We thought Subversion 1.5 was supposed to
>> track the revisions correctly so that this would work without
>> needing us to specify the revisions.
>>
>> We are running the 1.5.1 client, and the server is running 1.5.0. We
>> created both branches using SmartSVN 4, which is a SVN 1.5-compliant
>> client.
>>
>> We have also done a very similar merge in the past (2 months ago),
>> and it worked as expected.
>>
>> We're sort of at a loss here. My colleague suspects there is
>> something wrong with our repository. I said I would post again and
>> see if any of the experts had some advice. Something we can look at
>> on the repository, or the branch, or ??? Any guidance would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> - Rush
>
> I have done some experimentation, both with a brand new repository and
> with our existing repository.
> I did the following test:
>
> 1) Make a new repository using svnadmin 1.5.1 on my local machine
> 2) Populate the trunk
> 3) Copy trunk to a branch using command line svn 1.5.1
> 4) Copy trunk to a different branch using SmartSVN 4.0.9
> 5) Make some changes to the trunk
> 6) Make identical changes to both branches
> 7) Commit all changes
>
> I can branch from the trunk to either branch (using --dry-run so that
> nothing really happens), or from either branch to the trunk, and the
> revisions that are shown are correct. So a new repository acts as
> expected.
>
> I then tried this test with our current repository:
> 1) Created a new sibling of trunk, which I called testTrunk in the
> repository on the server
> 2) Populated testTrunk with the same import tree that I used for the
> new repository test
> 3) Copied testTrunk to a branch using command line svn (The server is
> running 1.5.0)
> 4) Copied testTrunk to a different branch using SmartSVN 4.0.9
> 5) Made some changes to testTrunk
> 6) Made identical changes to both of my testTrunk branches.
> 7) Committed all changes
>
> testTrunk Revisions of interest:
> Created....: 1667
> Populated..: 1668
> Last Commit: 1671
>
> SmartSvn Branch Revisions of interest:
> Created....: 1669
> Last Commit: 1672
>
> Cmd Line Svn Branch Revisions of interest:
> Created....: 1670
> Last Commit: 1673
>
> Since this is the working repository, our current revision is 1677 and
> revisions 1674 through 1677 all happened in trunk.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> * Try to merge from testTrunk to Smart Svn Branch says:
> --- Merging r1668 through r1677 into '.':
>
> I would expect something like 1669 through 1671, or maybe 1670 through
> 1671, or 1670 through 1677, or 1671 all by itself, but certainly not a
> starting revision that is older than the branch.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> * Try to merge from testTrunk to Cmd Line Svn Branch says:
> --- Merging r1668 through r1677 into '.':
>
> Again, it seems wrong that the start revision is older than the
> branch.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> * Try to merge from Smart Svn Branch to testTrunk says:
> --- Merging r1668 into '.':
> --- Merging r1669 through r1677 into '.':
>
> Shouldn't this be the range 1670 through 1672? Or maybe just 1672 (the
> only commit on this branch)?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> * Try to merge from Cmd Line Svn Branch to testTrunk says:
> --- Merging r1668 through r1669 into '.':
> --- Merging r1670 through r1677 into '.':
>
> Same here. I would expect 1671 through 1673, or maybe just 1673.
>
> These tests have convinced me of 2 things:
> 1) SmartSVN has nothing to do with our merge problems.
> 2) Something appears to be wrong with our repository metadata.
>
> Am I crazy here, or does this look wrong to the gurus? If you agree
> that something seems to be wrong, are there any suggestions about how
> I can fix it?
>
> Thanks,
> Rush
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-18 02:09:46 CET