svn 1.7's diff returns some extra entries for added binary files (the
prop-add).

We've been getting around this by parsing the diff, keeping track of
any files marked as a binary type, and deleting any subsequent "Index:
FILE" entries where FILE is one of those binary files. So for example,
changing your diff to just the entry below should make it work...

Index: run/assets/x
===================================================================
Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
svn:mime-type = application/octet-stream


Charlie

On Nov 18, 12:48 pm, Jeff Ward <j...@fuzzybinary.com> wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> I'm having some problems with Subversion 1.7 and RBTools.  It looks
> like Subversion 1.7 (at least SilkSvn) broke using Windows GNU Diff,
> using --diff-cmd as all attempts to get the diff error out with:
> ===================================================================
> svn: E200012: 'diff' returned 2
> svn: E175002: Error reading spooled REPORT request response
>
> This is probably a bug in subversion 1.7, but I can't get around it
> (unless someone knows a good way to do this?)
>
> So I wrote a script to take care of some of this by manually
> generating the diff from svn and handing that to RBTools directly.
> Now however, I'm getting a different issue.  When we added a new
> binary file, SVN's diff says:
> Index: run/assets/x
> ===================================================================
> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type.
> svn:mime-type = application/octet-stream
> Index: run/assets/x
> ===================================================================
> --- run/assets/x    (revision 184)
> +++ run/assets/x    (revision 185)
>
> Apparently when this gets sent to Review board, it makes it unhappy
> and reports this:
>
> >>> Got API Error 207 (HTTP code 400): The file was not found in the 
> >>> repository
> >>> Error data: {u'stat': u'fail', u'file': u'/run/assets/x', u'err': 
> >>> {u'msg': u'The file was not found in the repository', u'code': 207}, 
> >>> u'revision': u'184'}
>
> Is there a way around this?  Should Review board understand that
> revision --- for revision 184 means it *shouldn't* exist?
>
> --
> Jeff

-- 
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at 
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en

Reply via email to