Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:56:18 +0200:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:35:24 +0200:
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Philip Martin
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> >
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:35:24 +0200:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Philip Martin
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> > >
> > > > Yesterday, I debugged the code and found out why r(N-2)
> > > > wo
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:35:24 +0200:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>
> > Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> >
> > > Yesterday, I debugged the code and found out why r(N-2)
> > > would be reported. This was due to is-fresh-txn-root
> > > being set on so
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
>
> > Yesterday, I debugged the code and found out why r(N-2)
> > would be reported. This was due to is-fresh-txn-root
> > being set on some of the root noderevs. Some of the
> > affected repositories don't use direc
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> Yesterday, I debugged the code and found out why r(N-2)
> would be reported. This was due to is-fresh-txn-root
> being set on some of the root noderevs. Some of the
> affected repositories don't use directory deltification.
> Maybe, I'm able to look deeper into how that
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:06:48 +0100:
> > Daniel Shahaf writes:
> >
> > > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:09:54 +0100:
> > >> Daniel Shahaf writes:
> > >>
> > >> > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 20
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:06:48 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:09:54 +0100:
> >> Daniel Shahaf writes:
> >>
> >> > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:49:36 +0100:
> >> >>
> >> >> I attached to the issue a rep
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:09:54 +0100:
>> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>>
>> > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:49:36 +0100:
>> >>
>> >> I attached to the issue a repository that demonstrates the corruption;
>> >> verify doesn't report a prob
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:09:54 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:49:36 +0100:
> >>
> >> I attached to the issue a repository that demonstrates the corruption;
> >> verify doesn't report a problem on that repository. What do
Philip Martin writes:
> This has nothing to do with the corrupt repository. I get the same
> error for:
>
> svnadmin create repo
> svn import -mm repo/format file://`pwd`/repo/f
> svnadmin verify repo
>
> I get a different error for:
>
> svnadmin create repo
> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
>
Philip Martin writes:
> $ valgrind -q subversion/svnadmin/.libs/lt-svnadmin verify repo
> * Verified revision 0.
> ==9089== Invalid read of size 1
> ==9089==at 0x4C25FF8: memcpy (mc_replace_strmem.c:497)
> ==9089==by 0x54E73F5: svn_stringbuf_appendbytes (string.c:558)
> ==9089==by 0x5
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:49:36 +0100:
>>
>> I attached to the issue a repository that demonstrates the corruption;
>> verify doesn't report a problem on that repository. What does verify
>> check?
>
> validate_root_noderev() catches an instance of t
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:49:36 +0100:
> Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
>
> > Could you please fix the UI experience first?
> > Currently, svnadmin verify will first verify the
> > root nodes of all revisions of the whole repository
> > and *then* start verifying all revisions showi
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> Could you please fix the UI experience first?
> Currently, svnadmin verify will first verify the
> root nodes of all revisions of the whole repository
> and *then* start verifying all revisions showing
> some progress info.
>
> Two issues with that:
> (1) The first part
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:03:24 +0200:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Should we mark the issue as FIXED ?
> >
>
> Could you please fix the UI experience first?
> Currently, svnadmin verify will first verify the
> root nodes of all revisions o
I think we definitely fixed one bug that could have explained this
corruption. (Specifically the valgrind bug which you isolated no the
ticket.)
Let's close the ticket then, and reopen it if someone can reproduce it
with ≥{1.6.18,1.7.5}.
Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:10:03 +010
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> >
> >> Should we mark the issue as FIXED ?
> >>
> >
> > Could you please fix the UI experience first?
> > Currently, svnadmin verify will first verify
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
>> Should we mark the issue as FIXED ?
>>
>
> Could you please fix the UI experience first?
> Currently, svnadmin verify will first verify the
> root nodes of all revisions of the whole repository
> and *then* star
I was going to ask you!
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Should we mark the issue as FIXED ?
>
> phi...@tigris.org wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 16:37:56 -0700:
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4129
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Additional comments from phi...@tigris.org Tue Ju
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Should we mark the issue as FIXED ?
>
Could you please fix the UI experience first?
Currently, svnadmin verify will first verify the
root nodes of all revisions of the whole repository
and *then* start verifying all revisions showing
some p
Should we mark the issue as FIXED ?
phi...@tigris.org wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 16:37:56 -0700:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4129
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Additional comments from phi...@tigris.org Tue Jul 24 16:37:55 -0700
> 2012 ---
> r1302613 was backported
21 matches
Mail list logo
