subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Burba <ptbu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test.c
Date Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:38:25 GMT
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: hwright@apache.org [mailto:hwright@apache.org]
>> >> Propchange: subversion/branches/1.6.x/
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> --- svn:mergeinfo (original)
>> >> +++ svn:mergeinfo Mon Jan  4 16:16:23 2010
>> >> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
>> >> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38572:875006-875011
>> >> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38799:875225-875262
>> >> /subversion/branches/1.6.x-r38927:875347-875521
>> >> +/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r39019:879132-895676
>> >> +/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r39109:879131
>> >
>> > What happens here ^^^^
>> >
>> > I think you triggered an old bug here that should be resolved by a previous
merge?
>>
>> Dunno.  I was using the latest 1.6.x client to do this merge, so it shouldn't be
a already-fixed bug.
>
> If it's the "1.6.x-r39109" part that's worrying, that could be genuine
> mergeinfo. A branch named "1.6.x-r39109" did exist for a while; its name
> was a typo and so it was deleted and recreated.
>
> - Julian
>

Julian beat me to the explanation.

And yes, I should have simply deleted the 1.6.x-r39109 branch and
created a new 1.6.x-r39019 branch rather than doing a rename.  It's
not as if I had actually backported anything yet.  So user error on my
part, but no harm and no bug.

Paul

Mime
View raw message