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

Re: Always reproducible base checksum mismatch error

From: John Szakmeister <john_at_szakmeister.net>
Date: 2007-11-22 21:09:46 CET

David Glasser wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007 2:13 PM, David Glasser <glasser@davidglasser.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2007 2:10 PM, David Glasser <glasser@davidglasser.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 2007 1:10 PM, Philipp Wollermann <philipp@igowo.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> David Glasser wrote on 2007-11-22:
>>>>> Do you have the ability to test against trunk svn?
>>>> I just tested against the trunk, it didn't change anything.
>>> Both client and server, right?
>>>
>>> Hmm. After running your script, can you give the output of
>>>
>>> svn info url://to/the/file -r123
>>>
>>> where 123 is replaced with each revision from 1 to the last revision committed?
>>>
>>> And also the error message again, and the contents of the .svn/entries
>>> file again (the whole thing).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>> Actually, the info calls won't give me the checksums I want; can you instead:
>>
>> * run the script until it fails
>> * send the output of the script (including error message)
>> * send tarballs of the working copy and repository
>
> Philipp sent me these tarballs (I encourage you to send them to the
> list instead so everyone can help...)
>
> r2 is broken. The rev file revs/2 contains the delta rep for the
> change to 'test' in r2, but it is not referred to from anywhere: the
> contents dump for the "/" directory claims that the node "test" is
> "file 1.0.r1/52", that is, the unchanged file from r1. There is no
> noderev for the r2 version.

Yep, I just saw the same thing. FWIW, this is not the first time I've
seen this. In fact, the few instances I've seen would have a revision
that had the change path, but no rev and then the following revision
would contain the changed path and rev.

>
> Philipp, are you sure you were able to reproduce this with trunk
> client *and server*? There definitely have been recent relevant
> changes, such as r27256 (currently nominated for backport to 1.4.6 but
> lacking enough votes).

Interesting. That's definitely nasty. I can probably review that
commit more thoroughly if you need someone else to take a look. Just
give me a heads up if that's the case.

-John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 22 21:10:32 2007

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