Hi,
There appears to be a problem with the new svnrdump command handling revisions
where multiple simultaneous property changes occur on a single file or
directory. I couldn't see any mention of this in the user or dev lists
elsewhere.
To recreate to bug, do the following:
svnadmin create tes
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:50 AM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> There appears to be a problem with the new svnrdump command handling
> revisions where multiple simultaneous property changes occur on a single
> file or directory. I couldn’t see any mention of this in the user or dev
> lists elsewhere.
>
>
>
On 03/25/2011 11:31 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> Neil,
> Thanks for the report. In attempting to reproduce, I wasn't even able
> to get as far as comparing the dumpfiles, as svnrdump asserted
> somewhere in the process. I opened issue 3844[1] to track this bug,
> and committed an XFailing test in
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 03/25/2011 11:31 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> Neil,
>> Thanks for the report. In attempting to reproduce, I wasn't even able
>> to get as far as comparing the dumpfiles, as svnrdump asserted
>> somewhere in the process. I opened issu
On 25 March 2011 at 19:19, Hyrum K Wright wrote
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> On 03/25/2011 11:31 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> Neil,
>>> Thanks for the report. In attempting to reproduce, I wasn't even able
>>> to get as far as comparing the dumpfiles, as svnr
I've taken a shot at a regression test in r1086497.
However, I think we may have a larger problem here:
The svn_delta_editor_t API allows change_dir_prop() calls to be
transmitted only after all directory-children of a directory have been
transmitted [1]. How can we generate a dumpfile given th
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danie...@elego.de]
> Sent: dinsdag 29 maart 2011 12:13
> To: neil.win...@bt.com
> Cc: Hyrum K Wright; C. Michael Pilato; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bug in svnrdump (trunk@1085375) -- malformed dump fi
On 03/28/2011 08:26 AM, neil.win...@bt.com wrote:
> Sorry, but no cigar :( This probably fixes the assertion found by Hyrum,
> but doesn't address the original issue.
To simplify things, I've repurposed issue #3844[1] to track the problem
that Hyrum was solving, and opened a new issue #3847[2] for
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:06 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 08:26 AM, neil.win...@bt.com wrote:
>> Sorry, but no cigar :( This probably fixes the assertion found by Hyrum,
>> but doesn't address the original issue.
>
> To simplify things, I've repurposed issue #3844[1] to track the p
> I committed a patch which fixes issue #3847 in r1092783. Neil, if you
> want to get this revision to validate the fix in your environment, I'd
> be much obliged.
I've tested this out locally with dumps/restores from a number of our
repositories and it all looks good.
Thanks guys!
Neil
10 matches
Mail list logo
