On Jan 26, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 at 19:19 -0800:
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>>> Brieuc Jeunhomme wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 at 17:41 +0100:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have found something that looks to me like a bug, although I
>>>> don't
>>>> know how I came to this situation. I have more detail about the
>>>> problem
>>>> if needed, I can fill a bug report with all of it if it's
>>>> confirmed it
>>>> is a bug.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am the only one using the svn repository, on a remote server
>>>> (svn+ssh://...). I am using 1.5.4. The symptoms are the
>>>> following: I
>>>> try to do an update, svn complains about a lock and suggests a
>>>> cleanup.
>>>> I perform a cleanup, and try to update again, without any success.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> % svn update
>>>>
>>>> Fetching external item into 'specs'
>>>> svn: Working copy 'specs' locked
>>>> svn: run 'svn cleanup' to remove locks (type 'svn help cleanup' for
>>>> details)
>>>> % ./build-subversion-1.5.4/bin/svn cleanup
>>>> % ./build-subversion-1.5.4/bin/svn update
>>>>
>>>> Fetching external item into 'specs'
>>>> svn: Working copy 'specs' locked
>>>> svn: run 'svn cleanup' to remove locks (type 'svn help cleanup' for
>>>> details)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that's obviously a bug --- especially if you can reproduce it
>>> with
>>> a new checkout (i.e., it's not something gone broken in that
>>> specific
>>> working copy).
>>>
>>> Can you show us how to reproduce this bug, starting with a new
>>> repository? If possible, package the instructions as a script
>>> (e.g.,
>>> http://svn.tigris.org/repro-template.sh). Thanks.
>>
>> Fyi, Brieuc opened a ticket on this
>>
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3363
>>
>> which I closed without seeing this the link back to this thread.
>>
>> There's two separate issues. One that doing potentially multiple
>> control-C's
>> to svn can leave the working copy in a locked state. The code
>> currently
>> catches signals and does the best job to clean up the wc and leave
>> it in a
>> good state, but you can always kill -9 or potentially send enough
>> control-C's
>> to kill it and leave the wc in a locked state.
>>
>
> Well, sure, if you do 'kill -9', the wc will remain locked. But I
> don't
> think Brieuc said (in the email) that he did used either that or
> ^C. So
> I assumed no signals were involved.
No, in the email he didn't say any signals were used. In the ticket
that was stated.
Blair
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1057949
Received on 2009-01-27 09:40:43 CET