Re: '@BASE' vs. 'BASE tree' -- was: Re: svn_wc__db_base_get_info() vs. svn_wc__db_read_info() ?

2010-01-30 Thread Greg Stein
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 06:59, Julian Foad wrote: > Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: >> I'd call them the Unchanged tree, the Schedule tree, and the Actual tree. >> And just to be wild, I'd not make them all-caps ;) > > For the first, "Unchanged" could be OK, although since we talk about > changes so often

Re: Taking stock: BASE keyword on the command line

2010-01-30 Thread Bert Huijben
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: > Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: >> Starting from 'svn help', I see these commands where @BASE is applicable: >> >>    blame (praise, annotate, ann) >>    cat >>    copy (cp) >>    diff (di) >>    export >>    info >>    list (ls) >>    log >>    mer

Re: Taking stock: BASE keyword on the command line

2010-01-30 Thread Neels J Hofmeyr
Bert Huijben wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: >> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: >>> Starting from 'svn help', I see these commands where @BASE is applicable: [...] [...] [...] > I would like to compare the result to a 1.6.X version, but I don't > have the time to do that

'svnadmin recover' with FSFS revprop packing: edge case bug

2010-01-30 Thread Daniel Shahaf
fs_fs.c:recover_body() needs to be taught that the youngest revision does not necessarily have a revprop file. The following repository demonstrates the bug: % cat db/format 5 layout sharded 4 % cat db/current 3 % find db/rev* db/revprops db/revprops/revprops.db

Re: svn commit: r904901 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c

2010-01-30 Thread Daniel Shahaf
danie...@apache.org wrote on Sat, 30 Jan 2010 at 22:08 -: > Author: danielsh > Date: Sat Jan 30 22:08:45 2010 > New Revision: 904901 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=904901&view=rev > Log: > * subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c > (commit_obliteration_body): > When obliterating a pa