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

Re: differences in dump/load/dump cycle

From: Stefan Hett <stefan_at_egosoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:01:00 +0200

On 7/31/2016 11:54 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I went through a long overdue dump/load cycle of our main repository and
>> am wondering atm about a difference I see when comparing the dump of the
>> repository with the original dump.
>> There are a few (at a guess around 20-50) differences of the following
>> structure (using fc [olddump] [newdump] on Windows):
>> ***** svn.dump
>> Node-path: XRebirth/tags/XR v3.53 RC2 (final)/src/SDKs/DX9SDK
>> Node-kind: dir
>> Node-action: change
>> Revision-number: 193958
>> ***** SVN_NEW.DMP
>> Revision-number: 193958
>> *****
>> svn.dump was generated using svnadmin 1.8.15 (32-bit).
>> The dump was then loaded in a new clean repository using svnadmin 1.8.16
>> (64-bit). svn_new.dmp was then written using svnadmin 1.8.16 (64-bit) as
>> well.
>> The original repository was created using SVN 1.7. At some point in the
>> past (around 2 years ago) the server was upgraded to SVN 1.8 but the
>> repository was still kept at fsfs format 5. Around a year later the
>> repository was upgraded to SVN 1.8 (fsfs format 6).
>> For the new repository fsfs.conf was modified to enable directory and
>> property deltification.
>> For the DX9SDK directory (which is reported being different in both
>> dumps in some revisions) this was originally using externals and at some
>> point we switched to a direct copy of the folder (not sure whether
>> that's relevant though).
>> Is this difference expected? I remember (and Bert mentioned it too) that
>> there were some cases for different handling of noop-changes. Is that
>> what explains the difference I see here? If so, I take it that's
>> expected and does not result in any difference between the repository
>> states, or does it? JCorvel, would you have an idea?
> It's possible that this is a benign change, with no visible effects.
> I'm not sure.
> The problem I ran into with dump was a new bug in 1.9.0 (fixed in
> 1.9.3 I think). It was with no-op changes to files, not directories.
> This was IMO definitely a bug, because the effect was visible in the
> new repository (namely, if you ran 'svn log somepath', where somepath
> was a file which had such a no-op change (not possible to create with
> the standard svn client btw, but possible with other tools or from a
> cvs2svn conversion) in revision R, then revision R would not be listed
> as part of somepath's history). It's unclear to me if you can see a
> similar loss of "changed-path / history" association.
> In my case the change in the dumpfile was a bit different: the
> Node-path / Node-kind / Node-action lines were still there, but the
> Text-content lines were gone (if you dumped again from the new
> repository, the entire block with Node-path etc would be gone). See
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2015-09/0269.shtml for the entire
> (long) discussion, which lead to the bugfix for 1.9.3.
Ah right. Now i recall. Thanks for digging that up. So unless I observe
any issues, I take it that the change I observed is just a benign one.

Stefan Hett
Received on 2016-08-02 13:01:14 CEST

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