On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:43:56AM -0800, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Author: stas
> >Date: Sat Dec 11 11:15:27 2004
> >New Revision: 111615
> >
> >URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=111615
> >Log:
> >tag 1.17
> >
> >Added:
> >   httpd/test/tags/APACHE_TEST_1_17/
> >      - copied from r111612, httpd/test/trunk/perl-framework/Apache-Test/
> >   httpd/test/tags/APACHE_TEST_1_17/Changes
> >      - copied unchanged from r111614, 
> >      httpd/test/trunk/perl-framework/Apache-Test/Changes
> >   httpd/test/tags/APACHE_TEST_1_17/Makefile.PL
> >      - copied unchanged from r111613, 
> >      httpd/test/trunk/perl-framework/Apache-Test/Makefile.PL
> >   httpd/test/tags/APACHE_TEST_1_17/RELEASE
> >      - copied unchanged from r111613, 
> >      httpd/test/trunk/perl-framework/Apache-Test/RELEASE
> 
> Anybody care to shed some light to what exactly this means?
> 
> Our normal release process is something like this:
> 
> $> make dist
> [... test ...]
> $> vi lib/Apache/Test.pm [bump version]
> $> svn ci -m'Bump version' lib/Apache/Test.pm
> $> svn copy . https://svn.apache.org/[...]/tags/1.17
> 
> And I thought this was the appropriate way to go about it. From what I
> can gather by reading this message, the copy operation wasn't 100%
> clean, am I right ?

I think it's OK, but since you had a mixed revision working copy it 
looks a little strange: you had:

  . => last "svn update" at r111612
  Makefile.PL, RELEASE => committed changes in r111613
  Changes => committed changes in r111614

and so when you copied the WC to the tag, that's exactly what SVN
copied.  If you had run "svn update" first, it would all have been
copied from the same revision, r111614 (or whatever).

But the normal procedure for tagging is to copy from URL to URL, which
avoids this and is faster:

svn copy https://svn.apache.org/.../trunk \ 
        https://svn.apache.org/.../tags/1.17

(optionally with an -r to peg at specific revision, I guess)

joe

> 
> At this point, I am just a bit worried that there is something going
> on that I am not fully aware, so if anybody can shed some light, it
> would be much appreciated.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Philippe M. Chiasson m/gozer\@(apache|cpan|ectoplasm)\.org/ GPG KeyID : 
> 88C3A5A5 http://gozer.ectoplasm.org/     F9BF E0C2 480E 7680 1AE5 3631 CB32 
> A107 88C3A5A5


Reply via email to