subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Hett <>
Subject Re: svn-normalizer tool error E160013
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:24:44 GMT
> Hi,
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Stefan Hett < 
>> <>> wrote:
>>     Hi,
>>     (sending to dev rather than to user since it's still an
>>     unreleased tool)
>>     I just tried to do a test-run on another checked-out path from
>>     the same repository I already ran svn-normalizer on, but get a
>>     weird error which I don't understand the reason for... Maybe you
>>     have an idea?
>>     E:\[projects]\SDKs>E:\[delete]SVNTest\SVNtest\svn-mergeinfo-normalizer
>>     normalize
>>     Scanning working copy E:/[projects]/SDKs ...
>>         Found mergeinfo on 16 nodes.
>>         Found 688 branch entries.
>>         Found 1472 merged revision ranges.
>>     Fetching log for ...svn:
>>     E160013: '/svn/E
>>     gosoft/!svn/rvr/198196/Foo' path not found
>> The only way that could happen is if the working copy refers to
>> a path that does not exist (anymore), e.g. because it got renamed.
>> As of r1696183, the tool should work as long as at least the
>> repository still exists and is accessible.
>> -- Stefan^2.
> It's possible. Unfortunately I don't have the environment available 
> anymore to confirm this was the case. Think I've to assume that was 
> indeed the situation. Thanks for improving the handling 
I just found a backup from that earlier state.
So the WC root was on E:\[projects]\SDKs and linked to the repository at (repo root is The URL is still valid on HEAD 
So not sure what you mean by "the working copy refers to a path that 
does not exist". If you mean that some of the checked-out paths inside 
the WC are/were no longer present on HEAD in the repository, then this 
might be possible. If you mean that the WC path no longer existed on the 
repository HEAD then this certainly was not the case.

Anyway. Retested running the current version on trunk of 
svn-mergeinfo-normalizer and it now passes without problems in this 
case. So the fix/improvement seemed to work. :-)

Stefan Hett

View raw message