You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org> on 2009/03/14 15:44:26 UTC
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Author: jrvernooij
> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
> New Revision: 36553
>
> Log:
> Add tag 0.33.1
I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn thought
I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
sure it won't do things like this again.
Cheers,
Jelmer
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1322341
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Replacing the old copyfrom is mostly pedantic, providing a consistent
copyfrom when building the tag both the youngest and "shipping"
revision. I was also concerned that the svn:mergeinfo would've changed
(even though the content was unaltered), but this didn't happen.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How is one copyfrom better than the other? Do we have a rationale for
> why we would choose one over the other? And, therefore, why we should
> change these tags again?
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 17:19, Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com> wrote:
>> I tend to think that all of these commits should be backed out to
>> restore the original copyfrom info.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:41:45PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 at 12:11 -0500:
>>>> > On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>>> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>>
>>>> > >> Author: jrvernooij
>>>> > >> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
>>>> > >> New Revision: 36553
>>>
>>>> > >> Log:
>>>> > >> Add tag 0.33.1
>>>> > > I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
>>>> > > thought
>>>> > > I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
>>>> > > sure it won't do things like this again.
>>>
>>>> > Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
>>>> > between the replaced tag and the new one?
>>>
>>>
>>>> FWIW, the only changes I found were in the copyfrom-revisions:
>>>
>>>> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36552
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> r7796 | josander | 2003-11-18 20:15:18 +0200 (Tue, 18 Nov 2003)
>>>> Changed paths:
>>>> D /branches/release-0.33.1
>>>> A /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7795)
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36553
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> r36553 | jrvernooij | 2009-03-14 17:17:58 +0200 (Sat, 14 Mar 2009)
>>>> Changed paths:
>>>> R /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7789)
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> 7795 != 7789.
>>>
>>> Since there aren't any changes on /branches/release-0.33.1 between r7789 and
>>> r7795, this is effectively the same tag. My apologies again for
>>> accidently readding these tags, it won't happen again.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Jelmer
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1334140
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1345929
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
How is one copyfrom better than the other? Do we have a rationale for
why we would choose one over the other? And, therefore, why we should
change these tags again?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 17:19, Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com> wrote:
> I tend to think that all of these commits should be backed out to
> restore the original copyfrom info.
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:41:45PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 at 12:11 -0500:
>>> > On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>
>>> > >> Author: jrvernooij
>>> > >> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
>>> > >> New Revision: 36553
>>
>>> > >> Log:
>>> > >> Add tag 0.33.1
>>> > > I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
>>> > > thought
>>> > > I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
>>> > > sure it won't do things like this again.
>>
>>> > Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
>>> > between the replaced tag and the new one?
>>
>>
>>> FWIW, the only changes I found were in the copyfrom-revisions:
>>
>>> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36552
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> r7796 | josander | 2003-11-18 20:15:18 +0200 (Tue, 18 Nov 2003)
>>> Changed paths:
>>> D /branches/release-0.33.1
>>> A /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7795)
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36553
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> r36553 | jrvernooij | 2009-03-14 17:17:58 +0200 (Sat, 14 Mar 2009)
>>> Changed paths:
>>> R /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7789)
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> 7795 != 7789.
>>
>> Since there aren't any changes on /branches/release-0.33.1 between r7789 and
>> r7795, this is effectively the same tag. My apologies again for
>> accidently readding these tags, it won't happen again.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jelmer
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1334140
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1334300
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
I tend to think that all of these commits should be backed out to
restore the original copyfrom info.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:41:45PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 at 12:11 -0500:
>> > On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>
>> > >> Author: jrvernooij
>> > >> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
>> > >> New Revision: 36553
>
>> > >> Log:
>> > >> Add tag 0.33.1
>> > > I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
>> > > thought
>> > > I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
>> > > sure it won't do things like this again.
>
>> > Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
>> > between the replaced tag and the new one?
>
>
>> FWIW, the only changes I found were in the copyfrom-revisions:
>
>> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36552
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> r7796 | josander | 2003-11-18 20:15:18 +0200 (Tue, 18 Nov 2003)
>> Changed paths:
>> D /branches/release-0.33.1
>> A /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7795)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36553
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> r36553 | jrvernooij | 2009-03-14 17:17:58 +0200 (Sat, 14 Mar 2009)
>> Changed paths:
>> R /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7789)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> 7795 != 7789.
>
> Since there aren't any changes on /branches/release-0.33.1 between r7789 and
> r7795, this is effectively the same tag. My apologies again for
> accidently readding these tags, it won't happen again.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1334140
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
Posted by Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org>.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:41:45PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 at 12:11 -0500:
> > On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > >> Author: jrvernooij
> > >> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
> > >> New Revision: 36553
> > >> Log:
> > >> Add tag 0.33.1
> > > I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
> > > thought
> > > I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
> > > sure it won't do things like this again.
> > Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
> > between the replaced tag and the new one?
> FWIW, the only changes I found were in the copyfrom-revisions:
> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36552
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r7796 | josander | 2003-11-18 20:15:18 +0200 (Tue, 18 Nov 2003)
> Changed paths:
> D /branches/release-0.33.1
> A /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7795)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> % svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36553
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r36553 | jrvernooij | 2009-03-14 17:17:58 +0200 (Sat, 14 Mar 2009)
> Changed paths:
> R /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7789)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 7795 != 7789.
Since there aren't any changes on /branches/release-0.33.1 between r7789 and
r7795, this is effectively the same tag. My apologies again for
accidently readding these tags, it won't happen again.
Cheers,
Jelmer
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Hyrum K. Wright wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 at 12:11 -0500:
> On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >
> >> Author: jrvernooij
> >> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
> >> New Revision: 36553
> >>
> >> Log:
> >> Add tag 0.33.1
> > I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
> > thought
> > I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
> > sure it won't do things like this again.
>
> Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
> between the replaced tag and the new one?
>
FWIW, the only changes I found were in the copyfrom-revisions:
% svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36552
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r7796 | josander | 2003-11-18 20:15:18 +0200 (Tue, 18 Nov 2003)
Changed paths:
D /branches/release-0.33.1
A /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7795)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
% svn log -qvl1 ^/tags/0.33.1@r36553
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r36553 | jrvernooij | 2009-03-14 17:17:58 +0200 (Sat, 14 Mar 2009)
Changed paths:
R /tags/0.33.1 (from /branches/release-0.33.1:7789)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7795 != 7789.
Daniel
> -Hyrum
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1322647
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1323016
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
Posted by Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org>.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:11:40 -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> Author: jrvernooij
>>> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
>>> New Revision: 36553
>>>
>>> Log:
>>> Add tag 0.33.1
>> I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
>> thought
>> I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
>> sure it won't do things like this again.
>
> Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
> between the replaced tag and the new one?
Yes, I've verified manually that none of the tags have actually changed.
Cheers,
Jelmer
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1322723
Re: svn commit: r36553 - tags/0.33.1
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:17:58 -0700, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>
>> Author: jrvernooij
>> Date: Sat Mar 14 08:17:58 2009
>> New Revision: 36553
>>
>> Log:
>> Add tag 0.33.1
> I'm sorry about this spur of tag updates. For some reason bzr-svn
> thought
> I had these tags changed locally. I'll refrain from using it until I'm
> sure it won't do things like this again.
Out of curiosity, have you verified that there weren't any changes
between the replaced tag and the new one?
-Hyrum
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1322647