On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:03:47PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> on the same working copy. E.g. a 1.7 client might run into tree conflicts
> which it cannot understand because a 1.8 client flagged a conflict involving
> a move. I believe we should bump to avoid such problems.
FYI, here is what this looks like:
With trunk:
$ svn status
! C alpha
> local moved away and edited, incoming delete upon update
A + alpha2
Summary of conflicts:
Tree conflicts: 1
With 1.7.x:
$ svn status
subversion/svn/status-cmd.c:344: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/svn/util.c:981: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_client/status.c:490: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:2421: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:1200: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/svn/status.c:210: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:5814: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:249: (apr_err=155016)
subversion/libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c:130: (apr_err=155016)
svn: E155016: Unknown enumeration value in tree conflict description
I don't see a way to avoid this problem for 1.7 clients, apart from either
reverting the tree conflict description changes or bumping the format.
