Jonathan Nieder venit, vidit, dixit 09.10.2012 10:41:
> This test script uses "svn cp" to create a branch with an @-sign in
> its name:
>
> svn cp "pr ject/trunk" "pr ject/branches/not-a@{0}reflog"
>
> That sets up for later tests that fetch the branch and check that git
> svn mangles the refname appropriately.
>
> Unfortunately, modern svn versions interpret path arguments with an
> @-sign as an example of path@revision syntax (which pegs a path to a
> particular revision) and truncate the path or error out with message
> "svn: E205000: Syntax error parsing peg revision '{0}reflog'".
>
> When using subversion 1.6.x, escaping the @ sign as %40 avoids trouble
> (see 08fd28bb, 2010-07-08). Newer versions are stricter:
>
> $ svn cp "$repo/pr ject/trunk" "$repo/pr ject/branches/not-a%40{reflog}"
> svn: E205000: Syntax error parsing peg revision '%7B0%7Dreflog'
>
> The recommended method for escaping a literal @ sign in a path passed
> to subversion is to add an empty peg revision at the end of the path
> ("branches/not-a@{0}reflog@"). Do that.
>
> Pre-1.6.12 versions of Subversion probably treat the trailing @ as
> another literal @-sign (svn issue 3651). Luckily ever since
> v1.8.0-rc0~155^2~7 (t9118: workaround inconsistency between SVN
> versions, 2012-07-28) the test can survive that.
>
> Tested with Debian Subversion 1.6.12dfsg-6 and 1.7.5-1 and r1395837
> of Subversion trunk (1.8.x).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested with Subversion 1.6.18.
> ---
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> On 2012.7.28 7:16 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Michael G. Schwern wrote:
>
>>>> - git rev-parse "refs/remotes/not-a%40{0}reflog"
>>>> + git rev-parse "refs/remotes/$non_reflog"
>>>
>>> Doesn't this defeat the point of the testcase (checking that git-svn
>>> is able to avoid creating git refs containing @{, following the rules
>>> from git-check-ref-format(1))?
>>
>> Unless I messed up, entirely possible as I'm not a shell programmer, the test
>> is still useful for testing SVN 1.6. Under SVN 1.6 $non_reflog should be
>> 'not-a%40{0}reflog' as before.
>
> Here's a patch to make the test useful again for SVN 1.7. Sensible?
>
> t/t9118-git-svn-funky-branch-names.sh | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t9118-git-svn-funky-branch-names.sh b/t/t9118-git-svn-funky-branch-names.sh
> index 193d3cab..15f93b4c 100755
> --- a/t/t9118-git-svn-funky-branch-names.sh
> +++ b/t/t9118-git-svn-funky-branch-names.sh
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ test_expect_success 'setup svnrepo' '
> svn_cmd cp -m "trailing .lock" "$svnrepo/pr ject/trunk" \
> "$svnrepo/pr ject/branches/trailing_dotlock.lock" &&
> svn_cmd cp -m "reflog" "$svnrepo/pr ject/trunk" \
> - "$svnrepo/pr ject/branches/not-a%40{0}reflog" &&
> + "$svnrepo/pr ject/branches/not-a@{0}reflog@" &&
> start_httpd
> '
I haven't checked other svn versions but this approach looks perfectly
sensible. It makes us test branch names which can't even be created
easily with current svn. Does svn really deserve this much attention? ;)
Seriously, our tests prepare us well for an svn remote helper...
--
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