{"thread":{"id":"22701","subject":"Re: Git svn fetches entire trunk on tags (change from 1.6.5.2 to 1.7.0)","startedAt":"2010-02-17T23:54:09Z","lastAt":"2010-02-19T12:14:00Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Robert Zeh","Eric Wong"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"134903","messageId":"5CFEDDA0-6C6B-43DF-8BB4-E303E91C24EF@gmail.com","threadId":"22701","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: Git svn fetches entire trunk on tags (change from 1.6.5.2 to 1.7.0)","fromName":"Robert Zeh","fromEmail":"robert.allan.zeh@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-02-17T23:54:09Z","receivedAt":"2010-02-17T23:54:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"robert.allan.zeh@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Eric Wong wrote:\n> There was a rather large amount of changes between 1.6.5.2 so some\n> regressions could've slipped in. A bisection would definitely help\n> us track down the cause.\n\nI will attempt a bisection Thursday.\n\n>\n> Does the repository you're using svn:mergeinfo use by any chance?\n\nThe repository does use mergeinfo, but much later in the revision \nhistory then when the problem shows up.\n\nDo you have any advice on how to write a test for this behaviour, \nsince the problem is not apparent from looking at the repo? I do not \nlike the idea of a test looking at a log but that is all I can think \nof right now.\n\nRobert\n"},{"id":"134904","messageId":"20100218000620.GA7123@dcvr.yhbt.net","threadId":"22701","inReplyTo":"5CFEDDA0-6C6B-43DF-8BB4-E303E91C24EF@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git svn fetches entire trunk on tags (change from 1.6.5.2 to 1.7.0)","fromName":"Eric Wong","fromEmail":"normalperson@yhbt.net","sentAt":"2010-02-18T00:06:20Z","receivedAt":"2010-02-18T00:06:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"e@80x24.org","avatar":null},"body":"Robert Zeh wrote:\n> On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Eric Wong wrote:\n>> There was a rather large amount of changes between 1.6.5.2 so some\n>> regressions could've slipped in. A bisection would definitely help\n>> us track down the cause.\n>\n> I will attempt a bisection Thursday.\n\nAwesome, thanks.\n\n>> Does the repository you're using svn:mergeinfo use by any chance?\n>\n> The repository does use mergeinfo, but much later in the revision \n> history then when the problem shows up.\n>\n> Do you have any advice on how to write a test for this behaviour, since \n> the problem is not apparent from looking at the repo? I do not like the \n> idea of a test looking at a log but that is all I can think of right now.\n\nAndrew and Sam are the people to ask about mergeinfo, but I've found\nreading logs valuable for tracking down many issues in the past.\n\nI'm not 100% convinced mergeinfo itself is the problem (but it's the\ncode I'm least familiar with), and there were also some changes with\nglobbing (which I believe were harmless improvements).\n\n-- \nEric Wong\n"},{"id":"135074","messageId":"F3657B42-F723-4656-A86E-3117B355D6C0@gmail.com","threadId":"22701","inReplyTo":"20100218000620.GA7123@dcvr.yhbt.net","subject":"Re: Git svn fetches entire trunk on tags (change from 1.6.5.2 to 1.7.0)","fromName":"Robert Zeh","fromEmail":"robert.allan.zeh@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-02-19T12:14:00Z","receivedAt":"2010-02-19T12:14:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"robert.allan.zeh@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"\nOn Feb 17, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Eric Wong wrote:\n\n> Robert Zeh wrote:\n>> On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Eric Wong wrote:\n>>> There was a rather large amount of changes between 1.6.5.2 so some\n>>> regressions could've slipped in. A bisection would definitely help\n>>> us track down the cause.\n>>\n>> I will attempt a bisection Thursday.\n>\n> Awesome, thanks.\n\nI now believe the real problem is that I had an ignore-paths set in \nthe repo that fetched the entire trunk on branch. Is this expected?\n\nRobert\n>\n"}]}