On 10.01.2020 06:30, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 11:38 AM Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org
> <mailto:julianfoad_at_apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Proposal: a feature to check whether a Subversion WC's pristine texts
> (and potentially other metadata) are all present and uncorrupted.
> Possible second stage: ability to repair some problems.
>
> Why?
>
> Different factors can cause corruption, including:
>
> * the user accidentally changing .svn files by running a
> search-and-replace etc.;
> * bugs in Subversion;
> * "random" corruption caused by hardware or other software.
>
> One customer I know of recently found corruption of the "pristine
> checksum mismatch" kind in some WCs when trying to commit from
> them, and
> was looking for a way to check whether other WCs were valid ahead of
> finding a problem at commit time. That is not the first time
> users have
> experienced WC corruption. The usual suggestion, "check out a fresh
> WC", is a blunt tool and may leave a user with residual fear,
> uncertainty and doubt.
>
> Right now, there is no good and easy way to check if a WC's pristines
> are present and correct.
>
> Does it make sense as a feature proposal? Thoughts?
>
>
> I think both items makes sense as a feature proposal.
>
> It would make sense (at least in my mind) that 'svn cleanup' should
> perform whatever checks, and either fix (if it can) or re-fetch from
> the server (particularly since we already ask the user to run cleanup
> after interrupted operations).
I was thinking the same thing, only not by default because this could be
a fairly expensive operation. Still, it we have --vacuum-pristines, we
could add --verify-pristines.
Having a new 'svn wc <action>' subcommand would of course be nice, but
for consistency with the current status quo, adding an option to 'svn
cleanup' (perhaps 'svn wc cleanup' at some future date ...) would be good.
-- Brane
Received on 2020-01-10 11:26:33 CET