On Jun 4, 2006, at 19:03, Colleen Dick wrote:
> Thanks all for all the suggestions
>
> On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 07:16 -0700, Stuart Celarier wrote:
>
>> Have you run svnadmin verify on the repository in question? What
>> were
>> the results? Is the repository using BDB or FSFS?
>
> I'm pretty sure it's BDB (I'm pretty new at this admin stuff but a
> veteran of using svn as a developer)
>
> I ran svnadmin verify on the server (I control it)
> it said the following:
> svnadmin: Can't open file '/back2/svn/tixrus/trunk/format': No such
> file
> or directory
Then I don't think you told svnadmin the right path. Presumably you
ran this:
svnadmin verify /back2/svn/tixrus/trunk
but the error message says that's not the right path. Do you really
have a repository "trunk"? Or is "trunk" directory inside the
repository "tixrus"? Try:
svnadmin verify /back2/svn/tixrus
>> and would probably prefer to restore a
>> backed up copy of the repository. You do back up your repositories,
>> correct?
>
> I hope to shout. I pay a backup fee at my colo, they're responsible
> for massive damages if they can't bring back a previous. If I
> restore,
> though, wouldn't all working copies be invalid and out of synch and is
> there an easy way to synch them?
If you have to restore to a previous state of the repository, all
working copies of the repository are invalid, and continuing to use
them can cause big problems. They must be destroyed and checked out
again.
> OK.... It goes all the way to rev 366 like before. I don't understand
> why the BASE would suddenly be 66 (????) Why 66? why not 172?
>
> and I did a svn log -r0:HEAD on one of the files I changed very
> recently
> that worked fine, and it goes all the way to r398.
>
> But why when I do a svn info in my working copy it says I'm on r66
[snip]
I can't predict what might have happened because you changed the
contents of the .svn directories in some way. In fact, you said that
before, you were at r366, and now you're seeing r66. Could you have
inadvertently changed 366 to 66 somewhere? I'm not saying you should
now go muck with the .svn directories further; I'm just trying to
show that editing the contents of these directories is fraught and
not recommended unless you know exactly how they work (and I don't).
> yet when I do a status it doesn't show masses and masses of files that
> have been modified
The files haven't been modified, so I wouldn't expect any such
status. You presumably only edited the entry for the one directory in
the entries file -- and not the entries for all the files.
> It's worth a try to
> check out a new working copy but I'm still concerned that the
> repo may be south...
And hopefully the svnadmin verify command will tell us about that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jun 4 20:07:50 2006