[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Oh, shoot: Issue 2591 should not have been closed

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:06:11 +0300 (Jerusalem Daylight Time)

[ CC += users@. The reply trims and rearranges some of Nico's quotes. ]

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote on Sat, 26 Jun 2010 at 02:12 -0000:
> There's been plenty of time to address the issue. But according to the
> 2591 bug report:
> > Post-1.6 issue sweep. Since 1.7 is already shaping up to be a
> large release,
> move to 1.8-consider.
> To me, that looks like it's not scheduled until the 1.8 release.

It is (present tense) fixed in 1.7.0 and the issue says so.

    Resolution: FIXED
    Target milestone: 1.7.0

> There's nothing sophisticated about the situation. If you cannot
> duplicate one of the relevant contents of a repository with a
> "hotcopy", you don't silently ignore the problem and hope it goes
> away, that's basic programming practice for any backup or replication
> system: you at least report it, and ideally you provide an exit code,
> to let people know that they've done something you can't properly
> replicate and they need to fix it. The ignoring symlinks in silence is
> nasty

I'm sure this will be useful input to the dev@ thread I mentioned in my
previous post. (which deals with what apr_filetype_e values
should/shouldn't be considered by svn_io_dir_walk())

> and I've had to clean up after it 3 times since originally
> submitting the bug for people who thought they were being clever, and
> written some cumbersome autoconfiguration workarounds to deal with
> propagating configurations among multiple repositories.
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > If you'd like to move this forward, you can ask on dev@ to see what
> > changes need to be made (if any) and for more +1 votes (and less -0 votes)
> > in STATUS.
> >
> > Regarding your shell script, please review the regression test in HEAD of
> > trunk to ensure it captures the desired behaviour.
> >
> > Daniel
> The script tests the original bug as originally reported in the
> curreht 1.6.12 release. Compiling and integrating current Subversion
> releases under professionally supported RHEL releases (which I've been
> involved with supporting updates for for the last 4 years) is a fairly
> tricky procedure due to the non-RHEL-standard Python and SQLite
> requirements, so it will take me a bit to test it against the latest
> trunk code.

Note that you don't need to build trunk Subversion --- you just need to
run the regression test from trunk. You can do that by running the
following in a fresh trunk checkout:

    ./subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py --bin=/usr/bin hotcopy_symlink

Then, you may suggest a change to the hotcopy_symlink() function (in
svnadmin_tests.py) so that it better captures the regression. (i.e.,
merge your shell script with our Python regression test)
Received on 2010-06-26 09:05:58 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.