Hi Daniel et al, On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 05:21:41PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > Has anybody reviewed the patch? > > > > > > > > Too late for 1.6.13, I suppose? > > > > > > No. I've just added it to STATUS. That's the easiest way to ask for > > > reviews here :-) > > > > Thanks, but the Justification is not just "Could lead to sync'd > > repositories being different from the master." It's more severe: svnsync > > fails to copy certain operations. It's actually a "your sync totally > > stops working and you can't do anything" kind of failure - see > > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3641 > > > > If you happen to run into this: > > "svnsync: File not found: revision 5, path '/H/B/C'" > > you won't be able to sync the repository anymore after that. Which I > > consider rather disastrous given that we're going to use svnsync to > > provide partial copies of our repository to our customers. > > > > Scenario #1. As you describe: svnsync bombs out and refuses to > continue. > > Scenario #2. Per my comment on the issue, svnsync looks for /H/B/C --- > which DOES happen to exist --- and copies that to the target repository. > > #1 is noisy failure. #2 is silent corruption (the source and target > repositories differ). > > So, yes, both of them are possible outcomes; #2 is more severe and #1 is > more likely to occur in practice. :-) Agreed. #1 is more shocking in the short therm (which I currently cared since it would have been a showstopper for me). #2 is probably more shocking to discover later. Thanks, Tino. -- "What we nourish flourishes." - "Was wir nähren erblüht." www.tisc.de
