(Sorry--day job deliverables lead to a slow response...) 1) Diff #1: Added binary files show up "differently Bug #2359 "Review creation fails with patches created with Subversion 1.7.x if they include a property change." also documents a failure case when binary files are added, and I've confirmed it. To reproduce it, I created a mini-repository on Linux, added a binary file to it, and did a diff: 1) cd /tmp 2) svnadmin create repo 3) svn co file:///tmp/repo repo_copy 4) cd repo_copy 5) cp /bin/true . # Yes, it's a binary file 6) svn add true 7) svn diff For svn 1.6, you'll get: Index: true =================================================================== Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. svn:mime-type = application/octet-stream
Property changes on: true ___________________________________________________________________ Added: svn:executable + * Added: svn:mime-type + application/octet-stream However, if you do the same thing on SVN 1.7, you get most of that, plus some new stuff (in red): Index: true =================================================================== Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. svn:mime-type = application/octet-stream Index: true =================================================================== --- true (revision 0) +++ true (working copy) Property changes on: true ___________________________________________________________________ Added: svn:executable ## -0,0 +1 ## +* \ No newline at end of property Added: svn:mime-type ## -0,0 +1 ## +application/octet-stream \ No newline at end of property Apparently it's "the red stuff" that is causing the problem. (...and no, not just 'cause it's red. :-)) 2. Alleged problem with copied/added files: Rich Dougherty points out at: http://notes.richdougherty.com/2012/08/review-board-error-with-subversion-diff.html that he saw a problem "with files that have been copied from elsewhere in the repository and then modified." His workaround is to use the --show-copies-as-adds switch when generating the diff. I have tried, but cannot reproduce the problem in any way that I can attribute to SVN. Thanks for your help with this. m@ On Monday, August 27, 2012 3:17:23 PM UTC-5, Christian Hammond wrote: > > I'm working on a patch for the property changes. > > Are there other things people are hitting that you can give me repro > steps/example diffs for? > > Christian > > -- > Christian Hammond - chi...@chipx86.com <javascript:> > Review Board - http://www.reviewboard.org > VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM, mxbraun > <matthew.bra...@gtempaccount.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Hmmm...Thanks for the data point. It's interesting that that setup isn't >> encountering any problems. >> >> We're running: >> - A Linux distro with SVN 1.7.6 built from source >> - pysvn 1.7.6, again built using the 1.7.6 source-built SVN version. >> - Diffs built with cygwin's SVN 1.7.5 client >> >> I haven't used post-review in testing, because some of our users don't >> use it. >> >> We're encountering problems with diff's containing property changes, >> which is basically the issue reported in Bug #5309. >> >> Thanks again, >> >> m@ >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, August 27, 2012 9:46:31 AM UTC-5, Elardus wrote: >> >>> IIRC: >>> >>> - the sever (ubuntu) was upgraded to the latest 1.7 subversion >>> >>> - clients (on windows) were upgraded to the latest subversion >>> (1.7.4 at that time) >>> >>> - RBtools on clients upgraded to 0.4.1. >>> >>> >>> >>> I did not strip out/modify anything. >>> >>> >>> >>> The only problem I ran into was that the diff.exe program of the svn >>> client installation messed with my GNU diff.exe path. I sorted that and it >>> worked. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now that I think about it, I may have upgraded pysvn on the server also >>> since some compatibility issues were reported (google). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Elardus Erasmus* >>> >>> DigiCore Technologies (Pty) Ltd >>> >>> Embedded Software Engineer >>> >>> >>> >>> *Tel:* +27 12 450 2272 • *Fax:* +27 12 450 2311 >>> >>> ** >>> >>> *Email: *elar...@digicore.co.za *•* *Website: *www.ctrack.co.za *• Email >>> *Disclaimer<http://www.ctrack.co.za/about_ctrack/email_signature_disclaimer.aspx> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* revie...@googlegroups.com [mailto:revie...@**googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *mxbraun >>> >>> *Sent:* 27 August 2012 16:29 >>> *To:* revie...@googlegroups.com >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: SVN 1.7 support >>> >>> >>> >>> Do you happen to recall if you stripped out the new 1.7 stuff from the >>> diff, or did you modify pysvn or RB to handle the new content? We're about >>> to try something to handle these as well, and are considering the pros/cons >>> of both approaches. >>> >>> (I'd prefer the latter, but suspect implementing the former is much >>> easier.) >>> >>> m@ >>> >>> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:38:50 AM UTC-5, Elardus wrote: >>> >>> I have. Just don’t ask me for the steps. They are long forgotten. But it >>> was not too much of a hassle IIRC. >>> >>> >>> >>> Elardus >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Elardus Erasmus* >>> >>> DigiCore Technologies (Pty) Ltd >>> >>> Embedded Software Engineer >>> >>> >>> >>> *Tel:* +27 12 450 2272 • *Fax:* +27 12 450 2311 >>> >>> *Email: *elar...@digicore.co.za *•* *Website: *www.ctrack.co.za *•** >>> **Email >>> *Disclaimer<http://www.ctrack.co.za/about_ctrack/email_signature_disclaimer.aspx> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* revie...@googlegroups.com [mailto:revie...@googlegroups.**com] *On >>> Behalf Of *Daniel Laird >>> *Sent:* 23 August 2012 15:25 >>> *To:* revie...@googlegroups.com >>> *Subject:* SVN 1.7 support >>> >>> >>> >>> Has anyone managed to patch or modify reviewboard so that diffs >>> generated under SVN 1.7 actually work with post-review and ReviewBoard? >>> >>> >>> >>> The upgrade to SVN is about to hit my department and it will be a shame >>> to stop reviewing code as a result of this change........ >>> >>> >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> -- >>> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at >>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**donate/<http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/> >>> Happy user? Let us know at >>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**users/<http://www.reviewboard.org/users/> >>> -~----------~----~----~----~--**----~----~------~--~--- >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> reviewboard...@googlegroups.**com >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/reviewboard?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en> >>> >>> -- >>> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at >>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**donate/<http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/> >>> Happy user? Let us know at >>> http://www.reviewboard.org/**users/<http://www.reviewboard.org/users/> >>> -~----------~----~----~----~--**----~----~------~--~--- >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard...@** >>> googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/reviewboard?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en> >>> >> -- >> Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at >> http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ >> Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ >> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> reviewboard...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en >> > > -- Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/ Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- To unsubscribe from this group, send email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
