Paul Burba <ptbu...@gmail.com> writes: > That does fail on 1.6.6, better replicating the error Hyrum > encountered, but it fails simply because the self-referential > mergeinfo is never considered. As I was saying in IRC this morning > this is a case where one bug (rel pathed mergeinfo not handled > correctly by svn_mergeinfo_* APIs) allows us to avoid a different bug > (reintegrate code doesn't tolerate self-referential mergeinfo in some > cases). In most cases the first bug is going to cause problems, not > solve them.
OK. >> svn merge --reintegrate ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r40...@891008 >> >> the 1.6.x client gives an error: >> >> svn: '/repos/asf/!svn/bc/875961/subversion/branches/1.6.x' path not found >> >> and the 1.6.4 client doesn't: >> >> --- Merging differences between repository URLs into '../src-1.6': >> G ../src-1.6/CHANGES >> G ../src-1.6 > > That is interesting about 1.6.4, I'll have to look into what changed > from 1.6.4 to 1.6.6 that would account for this. 1.6.x is the prospective 1.6.7 with the r40452 branch merged. I expect 1.6.4 (that's my system version) and 1.6.6 to be the same. >> As I stated in a mail yesterday, the bug on the Subversion repository >> is triggered by the mergeinfo paths not having a leading '/' in >> addition to the other bogus data. It doesn't happen with the old >> collab repository where the paths do have a leading '/'. > > Regarding what you found with the old repos: The revision offset > between our old repos revs and the ASF repos is 840074 right? > > So shouldn't the mergeinfo on this path in the old repos, > >>svn pg svn:mergeinfo >>https://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.6.x-r40452/chan...@40513 > ... > /trunk/CHANGES:2-1281,35888-40052,40088,40152,40451-40452 > > differ from from the new repos, > >>svn pg svn:mergeinfo >>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r40452/chan...@880587 > ... > subversion/trunk/CHANGES:836421-837700,872307-876471,876507,876571,880525-880526 > > only by the offset? The fact that it doesn't is troubling, to say the > least, and might also explain why you got different results with the > old repos. Yes, I think you are right and I don't understand it. -- Philip
