On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Paul Burba <ptbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike and I were discussing the changes I made in > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=927243 to fix > issue #3020 and which were backported to 1.6.x. There is a regression > in that fix and I am changing my vote to -1 and pulling it from 1.6.x > (and today's roll of 1.6.10). > > The fix in r927243 addressed the problem of mergeinfo in a partial > dump of a repository, specifically: > > We dump -r(X>1):Y from repos A then load that dump into repos B. If > there is mergeinfo in the loaded revisions it may refer to revisions < > X. r927423 strips out these ranges. This is fine if the partial dump > of repos A is done in one step, e.g, > > svnadmin dump reposA -r200:300 > A.200.300.partial.dump > svnadmin load reposB < A.200.300.partial.dump > > because those revisions don't refer to valid history re the > mergeinfo's merge source. > > Unfortunately this fix breaks a (likely much more) common use case: > Dumping a complete repository in multiple steps and then loading each > chunk to the new repository, e.g.: > > svnadmin dump reposA -r0:100 > A.0.100.dump > svnadmin dump reposA -r101:200 --incremental > A.101.200.dump > svnadmin dump reposA -r201:300 --incremental > A.201.300.dump > > svnadmin load reposB < A.0.100.dump > svnadmin load reposB < A.101.200.dump > svnadmin load reposB < A.201.300.dump > > In this case, valid mergeinfo may be filtered from the 2nd and or 3rd load. > > I'll work on a fix that can handle both use cases, but for now I am > changing my vote to -1 and reverting this backport. > And just so folks know, Paul's got the RM's blessing on this. -Hyrum
