[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Invalid diff stream: insn 4 cannot be decoded

From: John Szakmeister <john_at_szakmeister.net>
Date: 2007-06-07 03:48:31 CEST

Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007, John Szakmeister wrote:
>> ----- "Chuck Berg" <Chuck.Berg@unlv.edu> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Any new insights from anyone?
>> Wrong list: users@subversion.tigris.org is the one you want. This list is only about development of Subversion.
>> That said, fsfsverify may help you:
>> http://www.szakmeister.net/fsfsverify/
> Are we bundling some version of fsfsverify with Subversion's source
> yet (e.g. in contrib)?

C-Mike actually sent me a private mail about the same thing. I guess I
have a few reservations:
  1) I don't have much time to maintain fsfsverify. It's sporadic at
     best, and I feel that putting something in contrib/ was a sign that
     I was willing to maintain it.

  2) I feel like having fsfsverify in the contrib/ makes it easy to fix
     broken revs... but also helps to mask the issue. Many more users
     have downloaded fsfsverify than have contacted me. Even fewer
     have offered any sort of help, if that provides any sense of the
     problem. That said, I see the other side of the story too--it's
     costly for a business to have downtime--which is why it exists on my

  3) I didn't want to have a script out there, in everyone's face so that
     some moron could along and say: "Hey look, Subversion is so bad,
     that this dude wrote a script to practically automate fixing broken

C-Mike countered both 1) stating that "putting it in contrib/ allows
others to more easily work on it." I buy that. He also countered 3)
and said "Bad things happen, and not always because the primary software
is buggy." I buy that too... though I don't think fsfsverify will be
much help in those cases in its current state. *shrug* I suppose
someone could help expand on its current capabilities though.

My real issue at the moment is 2). I feel like this corruption issue
has been out there forever. Partly because it doesn't happen that often
(relatively speaking), partly because fsfsverify is an easy way to get
back up and running and get along with life. Only those that have been
seriously irritated by the problem have bothered to chime in and help
look at the problem a little more in-depth.

So, my question back to the community is, am I out of my mind? :-) And,
do you see more value in having it in contrib/ than not? If so, I'll
put I'll happily put fsfsverify in the contrib/ area. Again, my big
concern is masking the issue rather than fixing it... although--and I
think Malcolm would agree--this has been a rather nasty issue to track
in general.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 7 03:49:38 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.