On 18 October 2011 17:10, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> sebb wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:57:14 +0100:
>> On 18 October 2011 16:33, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> > Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24 -0500:
>> >> I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
>> >> corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
>> >> people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
>> >> How can you tell if a workspace is corrupt?
>> > (you mean "working copy")
>> >
>> > Make a copy of it and upgrade that.
>> >
>> > Or, failing that, check all md5's in the working copy. But I expect the
>> > former option is far simpler for most people.
>>
>> By checking MD5, do you mean calculate and compare the hashes for the
>> working copy and corresponding base files?
>
> Yes, svn_wc_entry_t->checksum.
>
>> If so, is that something that the upgrade process could (should) do
>> before making any changes?
>>
>
> Upgrade already does that...
In that case, either that is an insufficient check, or the upgrade
fails to act correctly on the results of the check.
>> That would also be useful as a stand-alone tool.
>
> Could be. If I were to hack it I'd base it either on libsvn_wc's
> entry-reading APIs or on change-svn-wc-format.py.
Received on 2011-10-18 18:35:33 CEST