On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 1:36 AM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 5:10 PM <rin...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Author: rinrab > > Date: Thu Nov 28 22:10:30 2024 > > New Revision: 1922202 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1922202&view=rev > > Log: > > On the 'apply-processor' branch: Notice the paths in merged_abspaths on each > > addition. > > > > During the check of differences between the 'apply-processor' branch and the > > trunk, I noticed that it was accidently changed somehow. Reverting it back > > now. > > > > This is a follow-up to r1922090 (add callbacks for notifying merge.c > > from merge_processor.c), where the problem has been introduced into the > > codebase. > > > > In my testings, I got the test-suite running on all-green, will check the > > GitHub Actions status as soon as it would be ready! > > > > * subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c > > (apply_processor_updated_path:svn_wc_notify_update_add): Store the path > > in merge_b->merged_abspaths. > > > > Modified: > > subversion/branches/apply-processor/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c > > > > Modified: > > subversion/branches/apply-processor/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c > > URL: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/apply-processor/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c?rev=1922202&r1=1922201&r2=1922202&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > > --- subversion/branches/apply-processor/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c > > (original) > > +++ subversion/branches/apply-processor/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c > > Thu Nov 28 22:10:30 2024 > > @@ -7332,6 +7332,8 @@ apply_processor_updated_path(void *baton > > { > > if (! parent_added) > > store_path(merge_b->added_abspaths, local_abspath); > > + > > + store_path(merge_b->merged_abspaths, local_abspath); > > } > > break; > > } > > > Hi, > > Out of curiosity, was this the reason that merge tests #129 ("merge > with added subtrees with mergeinfo") was failing earlier on the > apply-processor branch?
Yes, but I think in combination with r1922200 (Check whereas tree-conflicts are supported in the merge, we are currently running). > I tried to follow along but admittedly between the commit mails and > GHA notifications I got a little bit lost. :-) :) > I recommend to amend the log for the revision that fixed it... perhaps > something like: > > [[[ > Note from future: This fixes: > 'FAIL: merge_tests.py 129: merge with added subtrees with mergeinfo' > which was accidentally broken on the apply-processor branch during > refactoring. > ]]] Done. Explained it a bit more. > Congrats on finding that! Thanks! -- Timofei Zhakov
