From dev-return-841-daniel=haxx.se@subversion.apache.org Mon Jan 4 18:39:00 2010 Return-Path: Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9) with SMTP id o04HcxgH018159 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:39:00 +0100 Received: (qmail 6130 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2010 17:38:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 6120 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2010 17:38:54 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:38:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ptburba@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.175] (HELO mail-px0-f175.google.com) (209.85.216.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:38:46 +0000 Received: by pxi5 with SMTP id 5so10619423pxi.12 for ; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:38:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v26gqSKwtXE3m+fq1tbqsxKvRzqferW5NoidGQv3YA4=; b=OvzWKLi2Dy1jghMz+j5WM5F4a8NUmKkUF3D7XIyZeWvQ35vBOrpEZMKscjjP/pfJVH g93edPr67XcuHTtQ6Mm3i9PsnGtJEz778LgIntRFAhSe0CNKSDqY9Hj5TsE4c9ZW06gG dLs9JBzWZ56FpJst4etuMxCBXzjJgSRbZal4s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eQwF9tqlXQ/KJWofa2Gnh3p0eVOF/AMUrcjPxEVjcmV/NYBLPphG/0u9QQoTQZi7+4 jF0LL0Klp7Xv4Lo7QjSteewm10RFmymVezZ50XkvwcQJM+FfU65vBkM2/oVOMmOw6Ket kUWmYgv9ZvqFLbZJWSImqB7Oq/IPbXMfdImwk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.7.41 with SMTP id 41mr799260wfg.117.1262626705521; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:38:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1262626478.13162.73.camel@edith> References: <20100104161642.2DEFA23888CE@eris.apache.org> <029501ca8d61$fe22ad30$fa680790$@qqmail.nl> <1262626478.13162.73.camel@edith> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:38:25 -0500 Message-ID: <6cfe18eb1001040938v33c1ea74uf367fadbf475faf2@mail.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 From: Paul Burba To: Julian Foad Cc: "Hyrum K. Wright" , Bert Huijben , dev@subversion.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Julian Foad w= rote: > 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 =C2=A04 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 pre= vious merge? >> >> Dunno. =C2=A0I 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