On 02/04/12 08:27, Gary wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Henrik Sundberg
>
>> Do you have a precommit hook now that was not there when revs 81-82
> were committed?
> There are no hooks as far as I know. (I'm not an admin, and the admin is not very forthcoming on.. well, anything, really).
>
>
>> Svn log will show the revisions whereever in the repository they were
>> made. Are they missing for real?
> Yes the revisions are really missing:
> $ svn log
Did you run svn log on the working copy? I ask because it's really
strange that two revisions are missing so maybe they have been made on a
different part of the repository. I would suggest running svn info to
get the correct repository URL and then run svn log against that URL.
> [snip]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r83 | gpspbu | 2011-06-24 12:34:38
> +0200 (Fri, 24 Jun 2011) | 1 line
>
> added missing file
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r80 | gpspbu | 2011-06-23 16:23:46
> +0200 (Thu, 23 Jun 2011) | 1 line
>
> Added WP31
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r79 | gpspbu | 2011-06-23 15:58:15
> +0200 (Thu, 23 Jun 2011) | 1 line
>
> Added a PhoneNumberUnlocker
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 15:25, Gary<listgj-svn_at_yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I see a lot of reports of this error, but little in the way of
>> clear information as to what it might mean, or how to fix it:
>>
>> $ svnsync sync file://`pwd`/dest
>> Committed revision 1.
>> Copied properties for revision 1.
>> Transmitting file data .....................
>> [...]
>> Committed revision 79.
>> Copied properties for revision 79.
>> Transmitting file data .......................
>> Committed revision 80.
>> Copied properties for revision 80.
>> svnsync: Error while replaying commit
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> If I look at the source server log, revs 81& 82 are "missing"
>> in the trunk. I imagine they are/were in a branch, which AFAIK
>> is no longer available. Is there any way to get around this?
>> Assuming that's the problem, of course.
>>
Received on 2012-04-02 10:21:54 CEST