Re: [PATCH] t9010: svnadmin can fail even if available

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> If svn is built against one version of SQLite and run against
> another, svnadmin (needlessly) errors out during t9010:
>
>  <<< Started new transaction, based on original revision 1
>       * adding path : branches ... done.
>       * adding path : trunk ... done.
>  svnadmin: Couldn't perform atomic initialization
>  svnadmin: Couldn't perform atomic initialization
>  svnadmin: SQLite compiled for 3.7.4, but running with 3.7.3
>
> Work around this by putting the svn invocations into a single test
> that builds a repo to compare the test-svn-fe result against.  This
> test would always pass but only set the new SVNREPO test prereq if svn
> succeeds; and the test using that repo gets an SVNREPO prerequisite so
> it only runs with working svn installations.
>
> This seems like the right thing to, anyway: the test script is meant
> to test the version of git just built, not the installed svn.

Yes, and I understand that this will prevent the mailing list from getting
spammed by useless "bug reports" that should have been directed to distros
that packaged broken subversion, which is a plus.

But I am somewhat unhappy because I do not think we want to cater to all
the broken installations of system tools.  When tests fail because
somebody's "mkdir -p" (just a random example I picked from your patch)
does not work correctly, we would just say "Your system is broken, and
here is a nickle; get a better computer".  Why is svnadmin so special?

Also isn't the breakage not just this test, but also in all the tests that
try to run "svnadmin load"?  Shouldn't we somehow hoist this logic out of
t9010 and put it in t/lib-vcs-svn.sh or somewhere?

As far as I understand, svn interoperability bits (git-svn and vcs-svn) do
not rely on svnadmin at runtime, so a breakage in the system's svnadmin
would not be a reason to omit building and installing them.  It however
somehow feels wrong to install something we cannot even test.  I do not
have a good solution to this offhand, though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]