Stefan wrote on Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 22:28:20 +0200: > On 6/26/2016 05:48, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10279222/how-can-i-fix-the-svn-import-line-endings-error > I remember the old discussions relating to this issue only very faintly, > but the same thread suggests the issue was "resolved" in SVN 1.7 and if > I'm not mistaken this was done by adding the --bypass-prop-validation > command line option to svnadmin load. > > I've been around for quite some time in SVN and did a lot of repository > upgrades myself and while there were certainly issues with the upgrade > process due to some specific edge cases, side effects of other problems, > or even issues in the upgrade code, issues during an upgrade process are > really everything else but common. So while that particular problem it > wasn't resolved on the 1.6 branch, it got resolved on 1.7.x+. > > One might question the way version releases go in SVN and the lack of a > more stable long term ESR release, but at some point you have to just > make a call based on available resources. There's only a limited amount > of manpower available and you have to decide what to focus on.
The reason --bypass-prop-validation wasn't backported to 1.6.x has nothing to do with manpower. Adding a --option flag is an API change so may not be done in a patch release, only in a minor release. Ideally we would have discovered the problem during the 1.6.0 alpha/beta/rc phase, then we could have added the option flag before the 1.6.0 release. > SVN is a really stable product, even with (or actually maybe because of) > the policy of only supporting the current and the previous release (and > for the previous release only backport security and data corruption fixes). > While the downside of this is that in some cases bugs won't be resolved > in previous releases anymore, it also helps to improve the stability of > the old-stable versions (since only absolutely vital code changes get in > and therefore you reduce the risk of adding new issues). I always thought the "only security and data corruption" rule was a lower bound but not an upper bound; that is: other bugfixes are also eligible to be nominated and backported, even if in practice few non-critical bugfixes garner three +1 votes in the older minor line's STATUS file. Cheers, Daniel
