Re: We're still going on 'tree conflict' issue

Stefan,

Actually, in double checking things, we find that what we thought was
a breakthrough in reproduction, was not.

There's a world of difference between ..

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

.. and ..

               Summary of conflicts:
                  Tree conflicts: 1

The latter is a "Subversion client has completed the merge, and ended
with a return code of zero"
The former is a "Subversion client has aborted the merge part
complete, and ended with a return code of non zero".

Of course, we want subversion client to never bail out of a merge, and
we're trying to reproduce it for you when it does.

Regards,

- Paul

On Sep 17, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:18:34PM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote:
>> OK so we can reproduce this for y'all now.
>>
>> We have a tiny svn repo (1.6.3) that could be attached to a bug-
>> report
>> and a single merge command that will show it immediately.
>>
>> Is that OK, or would the python bug reproductions scripts be better ?
>
> You can try sending a zipped attachment of the repo to this list,
> since it should not be too big.
>
> And please mention any commands needed to reproduce.
>
> Note again that *any* version of Subversion released as of today
> will have this problem. The fix is present on the not-yet-released
> 1.6.x-r38000 branch only.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2396474

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-18 16:27:47 CEST