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

RE: Backup a repository - Resolution

From: Erik Hemdal <erik_at_comprehensivepower.com>
Date: 2007-04-20 15:47:04 CEST

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Tracey [mailto:kmtracey@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:08 AM
To: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Backup a repository - Resolution

I'm not sure I've snipped this right, but I'm responding to Karen's reply
with a bit of Giulio's message left in.
  
 [snipped]

It's "svnserve --version" that shows the back-ends supported, not "svn
--version". svn is showing the options it supports for accessing the
repository, svnserve shows the options for the format of the repository
(BDB, FSFS) on the disk. 1.3.2 certainly should include FSFS.

Yes, the output is *really* 'vn and not svn. I thought too that that was a
hint that something was wrong but I couldn't guess what.

That's bizarre. Like you, though, I have no idea what it means. Assuming
you see no such weirdness in the restore cycle for the dump/load method, I'm
not sure it is worth pursuing. Perhaps it is a manifestation of
corruption/inconsistent state in the un-tar'd backup file, though that is
not how I would expect such problems to manifest themselves. But then I'm
just guessing on what you'd get trying to read a problematic backup....
 
Karen,
 
I've seen this kind of weirdness sometimes when using PuTTY or sometimes a
Cygwin window. I've always chalked it up to an inconsistency in character
set or carriage control. Like you, I would probably not pursue it if my
dump/load tests are satisfactory, and if a periodic svnadmin verify is
successful too.
 
Erik
Received on Fri Apr 20 15:47:47 2007

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