This is a modification to the 1.6.5+2 patches recommendation (your
email of September 14, 2009 1:17:08 PM CDT) - right ?
If yes, reverting all changes on Svn-1.6.5, re-making patch 3,
applying patch 2 & 3 again, config, make ....
.... yields the same result :
svn: Attempt to add tree conflict that already exists
svn: Error reading spooled REPORT request response
:-(
>
Regards,
- Paul
On Sep 15, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 06:14:00PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:39:46AM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Strange.
>
> I gave you the wrong diff command :(
>
> This is the one correct:
>
> svn diff http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.6.x@39163 \
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.6.x-r38000 > 3.patch
>
> Note the -r38000, this was missing in my previous mail.
>
> Sorry about that,
> Stefan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2395197
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-
> unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2395211
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-15 20:55:47 CEST