Thread:Extension talk:CodeReview/svnImport.php had troubles/reply (5)

Ok, I completely wiped out my wiki database (using MySQL drop), and reinstalled the wiki. Dropped the latest trunk version of CodeReview (r94951) into the extension directory ran the update.php script in the maintiance folder of the mediaWiki install. I then setup the repository with the "create" command, and added an url to an svn repository, and clicked create. That seemed to work. I was able to browse to the page of the new repository on my wiki. The page showed all the options for the repository, and an empty list of revisions as I hadn't imported anything yet. I did my initial import (via php svnImport.php ), and everything was blank when I went back to that page. I also noticed some weird messages while importing the repository (see bold lines below), not sure if this is has something to do with it?

799 2011-07-29 03:02:31 cgeroux (54.2 revs/sec) svn: No such revision 1200 svn: No such revision 900 801 2011-07-29 20:23:53 cgeroux (49.2 revs/sec) 813 2011-08-02 03:03:36 cgeroux (49.3 revs/sec) 815 2011-08-02 22:20:30 cgeroux (49.3 revs/sec) 817 2011-08-03 14:56:49 cgeroux (49.3 revs/sec) 818 2011-08-03 14:57:46 cgeroux (49.4 revs/sec) 819 2011-08-03 15:02:27 cgeroux (49.5 revs/sec) 821 2011-08-04 02:59:41 cgeroux (49.6 revs/sec) 822 2011-08-04 13:11:55 cgeroux (49.7 revs/sec) 824 2011-08-05 02:59:23 cgeroux (49.7 revs/sec) 825 2011-08-05 12:34:56 cgeroux (49.8 revs/sec) svn: No such revision 850 830 2011-08-06 02:59:02 cgeroux (48.8 revs/sec) 831 2011-08-06 18:29:26 cgeroux (48.9 revs/sec) 835 2011-08-07 02:58:42 cgeroux (48.5 revs/sec) 836 2011-08-08 23:16:17 cgeroux (48.6 revs/sec) 840 2011-08-11 03:00:10 cgeroux (48.2 revs/sec) 842 2011-08-12 20:13:52 cgeroux (48.3 revs/sec) svn: No such revision 849 Pre-caching skipped. Done!

This is strange, as my current repository version is 847. What's this about?

It seems like CodeReview will be a really great project, but maybe I should just wait till some of this stuff gets worked out, and it is a bit more widely tested, and more stable. Thanks for your input on previous problems.