Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:29:41 +0200: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:18:54PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > There doesn't seem to be a duplicated block. The revision file itself > > > seems > > > to be fine, expect that one of the lengths of the bad rev doesn't seem to > > > > Huh? Are you referring to the two 'length' attributes in the text: and > > data: attributes of a node-revision? In what way is it wrong? > > I don't remember exactly. > I'll need a bit of time to dig into the file again before I can give a > precise answer.
Okay. Julian and I's discussion today raised improper memory accesses as one potential cause --- and it could easily account for bogus rep-size (and rep-expanded-size) issues as well. [There was also a suggestion to get whoever can reproduce corruptions to run mod_dav_svn under valgrind :-).]
