You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by da...@apache.org on 2013/05/23 01:39:25 UTC
svn commit: r1485506 - /subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES
Author: danielsh
Date: Wed May 22 23:39:25 2013
New Revision: 1485506
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1485506
Log:
* CHANGES (1.6.x): Re-do r1485501 from trunk, minus the 1.7.10 part.
Modified:
subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES
Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES?rev=1485506&r1=1485505&r2=1485506&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES (original)
+++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES Wed May 22 23:39:25 2013
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversi
User-visible changes
- Server-side bugfixes:
- * fix repository corruption due to newline in filename (issue #4340)
+ * fix FSFS repository corruption due to newline in filename (issue #4340)
* fix svnserve exiting when a client connection is aborted (r1482759)
- Other tool improvements and bugfixes:
Re: svn commit: r1485506 - /subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:58:18PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> r1485501 touches both the 1.6.23 and 1.7.10 sections, so it would conflict if
> merged. So I didn't merge it, instead, I applied the change by hand. When I
> tried to record-only merge that revision (to a pristine 1.6.x working copy,
> using an 1.8.0-rc2 client), I got mergeinfo changes on numerous files in the
> tree. Transcript attached. I would have expected only ./CHANGES to have
> property modifications, not any other file in the tree. Is there a bug in the
> behaviour recorded in the transcript?
This is a known issue with --record-only merges.
They always update all subtree mergeinfo.
I guess fixes are very welcome :)
Re: svn commit: r1485506 - /subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:39:25PM -0000, danielsh@apache.org wrote:
> Author: danielsh
> Date: Wed May 22 23:39:25 2013
> New Revision: 1485506
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1485506
> Log:
> * CHANGES (1.6.x): Re-do r1485501 from trunk, minus the 1.7.10 part.
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES
>
r1485501 touches both the 1.6.23 and 1.7.10 sections, so it would conflict if
merged. So I didn't merge it, instead, I applied the change by hand. When I
tried to record-only merge that revision (to a pristine 1.6.x working copy,
using an 1.8.0-rc2 client), I got mergeinfo changes on numerous files in the
tree. Transcript attached. I would have expected only ./CHANGES to have
property modifications, not any other file in the tree. Is there a bug in the
behaviour recorded in the transcript?
Thanks
Daniel
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES?rev=1485506&r1=1485505&r2=1485506&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES Wed May 22 23:39:25 2013
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversi
>
> User-visible changes
> - Server-side bugfixes:
> - * fix repository corruption due to newline in filename (issue #4340)
> + * fix FSFS repository corruption due to newline in filename (issue #4340)
> * fix svnserve exiting when a client connection is aborted (r1482759)
>
> - Other tool improvements and bugfixes:
>
>