[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       subversion-users
Subject:    Re: Probable bug with svn copy
From:       Julian Foad <julianfoad () btopenworld ! com>
Date:       2010-01-28 13:21:52
Message-ID: 1264684912.28899.24.camel () edith
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 2010-01-26, Noorul Islam K M wrote: 
> Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> writes:
> > Paul Burba wrote:
> >> Also, would you mind taking a stab at expanding the test to cover
> >> Alan's original problem?  Specifically that a second working copy,
> >> when updated, gets both the move destination *and* the source added.
> >
> > Or a separate test - either way would be really helpful.
> 
> Please find attached the test case patch for the actual scenario that
> Alan explains in his mail.
> 
> This patch is created against r899215 because trunk has different
> behavior during commit.

Thank you, Noorul.

I think you mean the patch is against the 1.6.x branch. (A revision
number by itself doesn't indicate a branch.) That's fine, and the
easiest way to test it. However, I am going to apply it to the trunk
first, because it is useful as a regression test on trunk anyway (even
if the bug doesn't currently exist on trunk) and because that is the
usual way. We can back-port it to the 1.6.x branch afterwards.

I am also going to combine this extra check into the first test
function, like Paul suggested. (I thought the two tests might be rather
different but this is simply an extension to the first test.)

Committed in r904072.

Thanks for writing the tests, and the log message (although I decided to
change it a bit).

- Julian



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]