I've added my thoughts to the issue [1]; essentially, I've observed that
svn 1.6 stores tree_conflict_data="(foo bar)" where 1.7 stores
tree_conflict_data="foo bar", and this patch makes 'svn upgrade'
adjust accordingly.
I haven't tested upgrading from interim 1.7-dev formats, and I don't
recall o
Alan Wood wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion with the version labels.
No problem. I was just concerned that maybe we weren't successfully
getting the message out that these are builds of software that is still
under development, but it sounds like you were aware so that's OK. It
did make me double
On 21 Mar 2011 at 10:48, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:33:34PM +1300, Alan Wood wrote:
> > There should not have been any conflict data of any sort in this
> > working copy as I am the only developer and I have only every had
> > one working copy.
>
> That's not a valid
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:33:34PM +1300, Alan Wood wrote:
> There should not have been any conflict data of any sort in this
> working copy as I am the only developer and I have only every had
> one working copy.
That's not a valid assumption.
It is possible to inflict tree conflicts upon your
On Mon, 2011-03-21, Alan Wood wrote:
> Hi Devs
> I have now taken the plunge and moved to using version 1.7 tsvn for my
> development.
>
> After updating one of my working copies from 1.6 using TortoiseSVN from
> 2011/03/20
> subversion 1.7.0 r1082999 I had the following error:
Hi Alan. Not a
5 matches
Mail list logo
