Re: back-end fsfs DB corruption? - attempt to merge uncovering it

Stefan,

We rebuilt Svn based on 1.6.5 and those two patches, but it still the
same :-(

Here is the output. It is the same as the OP.

     svn: Attempt to add tree conflict that already exists
     svn: Error reading spooled REPORT request response

We confirmed that we had the right svn, by hard-coding the path to
executable, and confirming it was the right thing by way of 'svn --
version' before invocation.

Thus, Svn 1.6.6 IMO is going to exhibit some of the same tree-conflict
issues as 1.6.3.

Thoughts?

Regards,

- Paul

On Sep 14, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:52:33PM -0700, Jonathan wrote:
>> Great, thanks!
>>
>> I'm working with Paul on this. Will we need to upgrade the server to
>> take advantage of these bug fixes?
>
> No, all fixes are client-side.
>
>> We're on 1.6.3 for the server currently.
>
> That has a known security hole, so you should upgrade the server
> anyway: http://subversion.tigris.org/security/CVE-2009-2411-advisory.txt
>
> Stefan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2394811
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-
> unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2395153

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-15 18:40:44 CEST