On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > Hyrum K. Wright wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: hwri...@apache.org [mailto:hwri...@apache.org] >> >> Propchange: subversion/branches/1.6.x/ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> --- svn:mergeinfo (original) >> >> +++ svn:mergeinfo Mon Jan 4 16:16:23 2010 >> >> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ >> >> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38572:875006-875011 >> >> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38799:875225-875262 >> >> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38927:875347-875521 >> >> +/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r39019:879132-895676 >> >> +/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r39109:879131 >> > >> > What happens here ^^^^ >> > >> > I think you triggered an old bug here that should be resolved by a >> > previous merge? >> >> Dunno. I was using the latest 1.6.x client to do this merge, so it >> shouldn't be a already-fixed bug. > > If it's the "1.6.x-r39109" part that's worrying, that could be genuine > mergeinfo. A branch named "1.6.x-r39109" did exist for a while; its name > was a typo and so it was deleted and recreated. > > - Julian >
Julian beat me to the explanation. And yes, I should have simply deleted the 1.6.x-r39109 branch and created a new 1.6.x-r39019 branch rather than doing a rename. It's not as if I had actually backported anything yet. So user error on my part, but no harm and no bug. Paul
