CC += dev@

I haven't tried with 1.6.x, but merging a symlink-add from a foreign
repository does result in bogus state with current trunk:

[[[
% $svn merge -c r922451 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/site/publish/      
--- Merging (from foreign repository) r922451 into '.':
A    faq.en.html
% $svn st
~M      faq.en.html
% $svn info faq.en.html      
Path: faq.en.html
Name: faq.en.html
Working Copy Root Path: /tmp/svn/wc1
URL: file:///tmp/svn/r1/trunk/faq.en.html
Repository Root: file:///tmp/svn/r1
Repository UUID: 0d8f1070-806c-11e0-a89b-a382cea1935c
Node Kind: file
Schedule: add

% file faq.en.html 
faq.en.html: ASCII text, with no line terminators
% 
]]]


I'll forward this to dev@ (CC'ing you).


Christoph Bartoschek wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:24:30 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> I have a workarea where I merged in some changes from a completely  
> different repository. One of the changes was the creation of a link.
> After checking in I see that the link is ok in my workarea but not in  
> any other workarea.
>
> This due to the missing svn:special keyword that was not checked in. How  
> can this happen?
>
> The following shows inconsistent behaviour in my opinion. How can this  
> be explained:
>
> esquad$ svn proplist -v tm.h
> Properties on 'tm.h':
>   svn:special
>     *
>
> esquad$ svn info tm.h
> Path: tm.h
> Name: tm.h
> URL: https://server/trunk/include/tm/tm.h
> Repository Root: https://server
> Repository UUID: 608964b8-1798-474c-b2d9-552667dc04a5
> Revision: 27
> Node Kind: file
> Schedule: normal
> Last Changed Author: christoph
> Last Changed Rev: 26
> Last Changed Date: 2011-05-16 18:11:17 -0400 (Mon, 16 May 2011)
> Text Last Updated: 2011-05-17 02:51:09 -0400 (Tue, 17 May 2011)
> Checksum: 1a7ff762ceabb28ca8865f9b0ba377ff
>
> esquad$ svn proplist -v https://server/trunk/include/tm/tm.h
>
> esquad$ svn diff -r HEAD tm.h
>
>
> This shows that locally the svn:special keyword is set but not on the  
> server. But svn does not see any difference. Is this a known bug?  Or  
> how can I get the missing keywords checked in?
>
>
> Christoph

Reply via email to