On 3 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On 02.06.2015 20:05, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 02.06.2015 12:45, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> Ben Reser wrote on Sun, May 31, 2015 at 14:28:39 -0700: >>>> The 1.9.0-rc2 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing. >>>> Please get the tarballs from >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion >>>> and add your signatures there. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>> Note that Evgeny reported a regression in svn_repos_verify_fs2() in >>> <http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2015-05/0141.shtml>. No objections to >>> moving forward with rc2, but as that issue is a regression, we'll need >>> an rc3 that fixes it. >> Yes ... and the patch has been reviewed but not committed. I believe it >> only needs a couple tweaks (fixing an "if" condition and removing the >> unused error code). > > I have a more complete fix based on Evgeny's patch, running tests now. > It turns out that we still need a new error code for the summary > results, but with a different meaning and therefore different name. > Renaming it had a positive side effect as it turned out that we were > emitting the SVN_ERR_REPOS_CORRUPTED error from FSFS and FSX instead of > the correct SVN_ERR_FS_CORRUPT. > Another option would be to require notify_func for svn_repos_verify_fs3() and always report errors through notify_func. This would make error reporting consistent whether keep_going TRUE or FALSE. For svn_repos_verify_fs2() we could create compat notify_func handler that converts notifications to errors.
-- Ivan Zhakov
