From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-19 13:59:13
> Say library A depends on serialization. Serialization itself depends
> on config/whatever. Then, if config/whatever fails, the serialization
> will fail. Then, in turn, will cause library A build to fail.
> So, no test for library A will run, either.
Correct - that is as it should be. If A depends on serializaiton
and serialization depends upon config/whatever, and config/whatever
fails, then there is no point in running/testing serialization nor
anything that depends upon it. That's what "dependency"
> Can you, in light of above, clarify exactly will target will
> be build when it should not be built?
To repeat. in this example, building A would be a mistake
as it depends on something that is known not to work.
Building A under these circumstances is at best a waste of
resources and at worst very missleading.
> Hmm, a commit that fails because a post-commit hook rejects commit
> not require any of this. I also find it hard to imagine any local
> misconfiguration that might cause this. What are the exact error
> you get from SVN?
I reported one of them on this list when it occurred. There was no
response. It was complaining about a mime-type. I tried everything
to address it. Finally I created a new directory and made a new
update then retried the operation (adding a new file) and it worked
>> Sometimes the checkin reports
>> error but in fact does show up in th SVN browser, etc. On occasion,
>> the check-in is reported as successful on my system but in fact
>> didn't show up on the server (e.g. ../util/test.jam).
> This is just impossible. When SVN client reports "Comitted revision
> it means the transaction is done on the server. It cannot disappear
> without some admin work (if if that admin work is done, your local
> copy will broken beyond repair). Or do you mean Trac SVN browser?
> That might in theory introduce some delay, but I never noticed it.
LOL. I'm just reporting what I observed. Of course, you're free to conclude
that my observations might have been mistaken, but I assure you, I'm not
making this up. The offending file WAS missing and it was shown on
my local machine with a green checkmark indicating that it was in sync
with the server. - which is why I assumed that it was checked in
which was why the whole problem occurred.
Note that I have an SVN server on my local machine which I use
for my other work on a regular basis (without any problems).
Though I'm not an expert, I'm not a complete noob when it comes to SVN
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk