> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> One more thing. The fact that in r162 one file was deleted *and no
> files were added or changed* implies that the only new representations
> in r162 would be directory representations --- it wouldn't add any
> *file* representations --- so the reference to r162 in the node-rev
> header (the sequence of ASCII lines of which the "text:" line is part)
> is almost certainly bogus.
>
> I'm curious to hear whether the problem was indeed that the noderev
> referred to r162 instead of r192.
Sadly, it wasn't. I've now experimented with that. The offset supposedly
within r162 is listed as 670867 bytes, which is well outside the total
length of r162 as we've already discussed. But it isn't a valid pointer
within r192 either; offset 670867 points to the middle of one of the
other rep blocks within the r192 file. I've had a look at the other
node-rev headers and it appears that all the rep blocks in the r192 file
are fully accounted for by the node-revs which have text: 192. (That is,
there are no representations in the r192 file which don't already have a
valid node-rev header).
I've had a look through all the revs between 162 and 192 which are at
least 600 KiB in size. But I can't find *any* rev files in the whole
repository history leading up to 192 where an offset of 670867 points to
the beginning of a DELTA or PLAIN representation.
So, I'm now assuming that both the reference to r162, and the offset of
670867 bytes, are bogus. But there aren't any obvious candidates for a
non-bogus representation of that particular file update.
Given that the file with the bogus node-rev is unimportant, and has
since been deleted from the repo, is there any way to patch the r192
rev-file so that the repository has enough internal consistency to
produce a valid dump file?
At the moment it looks like the "nuclear option" is to check out the
current version of everything and start a new repository with it. This
*should* work because the corrupted file isn't included in recent
revisions, so SVN won't need to de-reference the invalid reference in
r192 when performing the check out. But if I can purge the broken-ness
from the repo and keep the rest of the history, that would obviously be
better. I certainly don't want to keep using a repo that doesn't
validate and can't be dumped, though.
>
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 15:37:11 +0300:
> > Quick reply, more verbose one might follow up later.
> >
> > Your reply breaks the nested quoting levels, please try to avoid it,
> are
> > you sending mail as text/plain?
> >
Sorry about breaking the nested quoting. I'm using Outlook which is
pretty mediocre as a plain-text email client. I was already using
text/plain, but Outlook's quoting style wasn't right, so I was trying to
manually fix the text-wrapping and quote marks. Clearly I wasn't getting
it right. I've now found a couple more Outlook settings which will
hopefully address the problem.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I'll be able to send you the actual
rev file(s), at least not without a lot of inconvenience that I don't
want to subject you to (ie an NDA, since we don't actually own the IP to
any of the code which may be included in the rev file). Sorry about
that.
Regards,
David Hopkins
===== PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE =====
The information contained in this message is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it, or disclose any details of the message to any person, firm or corporation. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
The views or opinions expressed in this e-mail or any attachment are not necessarily those of Serck Controls Pty Ltd.
NOTE - You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Received on 2011-09-19 04:07:04 CEST