Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think git-svn should artificially fail in the case. This is > using svn 1.6.17 > What's the oldest version of svn supported by git-svn? Perhaps if I > retry with that version of svn, I would see a failure. However, if > libsvn-perl reports the failure correctly, isn't that good enough > behavior? No need to fail in git-svn before even trying, IMHO. Originally (back in 2006/2007), the goal was to support SVN 1.1.x+. I'm not sure if I we ever lost support for such old versions. I use Debian stable for testing patches, and SVN is 1.6.12 there. Otherwise, whatever people are willing to support and send patches/bugreports for is good. > Is there a way to validate what the checksums should be, other than to > look at it and say, "yup, the trees look okay?" As far as I remember, that's how I originally wrote the tests. > Assuming you agree with the above analysis, should I squash the test > changes into my 2/2, or would you prefer a separate patch? Your analysis seems correct. I always prefer test changes to be combined with corresponding commits to avoid breakage during bisect. Thanks! -- 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