On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> >
> >> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose
> >> me to checkout??? You are crazy?
> >
> > Sorry, 'svn upgrade' cannot cope with corrupted 1.6 working copies.
> > That is simply the way it is.
>
> Someone in another thread mentioned doing fresh checkout, then copying
> the 1.7 .svn directory over to the old workspace and then being able
> to commit the outstanding changes. Is that a reasonable thing to try?
Not sure. Depends on why the 1.6 working copy was corrupt in the
first place, I guess.
If in doubt, get a fresh checkout.
> > If more people had tested the 1.7 pre-releases, your problem might
> > have been caught before the 1.7.0 release. But it was not found.
>
> I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
> corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
> people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
There are not as many corrupt working copies as it may appear from
the current flood of reports on this list.
From the #svn-dev IRC channel:
<stsp> i wonder how many people do *not* have a problem with upgrade
<stsp> how many people are trying 1.7 and don't report back because it just works?
<Bert> stsp: I see thousands of users that upgrade AnkhSVN every workday
and only a tiny few of those (< 10 until now) reported upgrade errors.
Received on 2011-10-18 18:47:19 CEST