On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 13:58, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> B Smith-Mannschott wrote on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 at 12:43 +0100:
>> As I understand it the Subversion server 1.6.x will refuse these kinds
>> of commits, even without a hook script, yes?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>> I've made a hacked-up variant of svnsync which will correct impure
>> eol-style in property values where the real 1.6.0 complains and dies.
>> (see patch at end of mail).
>>
>> This is obviously not a permanent solution.
>>
>> ---------------------
>> Don't try this at home kids: this is an *evil* hack. A validation
>> function which mutates an input marked as const is truly not a pretty
>> sight.
>>
>
> Less evil would be to change svnsync itself rather than the validation
> logic --- see how subversion/svnsync/main.c handles the
> SVNSYNC_UNSUPPORTED_STRIP_MERGEINFO flag. That way you also wouldn't have
> to modify consts.
I'll look into that. Maybe I can come up with something cleaner. My
hopes are not that high. I find the Subversion codebase to be almost
completely opaque despite the copious comments. I'm a Java programmer
by day, a C programmer only in my nightmares. ;-)
// ben
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1455825
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-03-28 14:12:57 CET