svnsync,svnrdump use the svn_ra_* API, not the svn_client_* API.
You should be able to use either of them if you install authz on your
repository such that *any* paths touched in r683 are unreadable by the
user svnsync/svnrdump connect as.
Steinar Bang wrote on Sat, May 21, 2011 at 18:26:30 +0200:
> >>>>> Steinar Bang <sb_at_dod.no>:
>
> > I've been looking to see if there are any tools that can slurp out the
> > history of a repository, using the svn client API. But all repository
> > conversion seems to be based on "svnadmin dump". And "svnadmin dump"
> > croaks on all revisions later than 682...:-/
>
> svnsync and svnrdump, sounds like if they implement part of this: they
> use the client API to pull down revisions for dump or export
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.tk.svnsync
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/99717
> nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/99717
>
> But they both stop on revision 683, and they refuse to start on any
> revision succeeding it. :-/
>
> Since it is possible to check out the parts/paths in the repository that
> are interesting to me (my home directory and its branches), it would
> have been nice if it was possible to tell these tools to make a clone of
> a particular part of the repository into a new repository (or a dumpfile
> for that matter).
>
> I don't care if revision numbers are preserved or not, only that the
> history is preserved (and preferrably with the branching information
> preserved).
>
> Failing that, is it possible to make all of the dump/export programs
> work on revisions following 683?
>
> I saw something in one of the google hits about "truncating the
> revision", and I tried to do so in one experiment. But as far as I can
> recall dumping later versions than 683 still failed.
>
> (I don't need that part of the repository tree that is in 683 and
> surrounding revisions, so any fix that loses it and lets me recover what
> is important to me, is ok by me)
>
> Thanks!
>
Received on 2011-05-21 19:02:02 CEST