Re: svn commit: r1353577 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

2012-06-25 Thread Philip Martin
Stefan Sperling writes: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:21:53PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote: >> (I don't see how it can corrupt your working copy. It can make a local >> change unnoticed, but I wouldn't call that corrupted) >> >> Bert > > I just meant to say that the db state is inconsistent wi

Re: svn commit: r1353577 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

2012-06-25 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:21:53PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote: > (I don't see how it can corrupt your working copy. It can make a local change > unnoticed, but I wouldn't call that corrupted) > > Bert I just meant to say that the db state is inconsistent with the expected state if this bug

RE: svn commit: r1353577 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

2012-06-25 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: s...@apache.org [mailto:s...@apache.org] > Sent: maandag 25 juni 2012 16:35 > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org > Subject: svn commit: r1353577 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS > > Author: stsp > Date: Mon Jun 25 14:34:39 2012 > New Revision: 1353577 > >