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
> >
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
>
Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:12:48 +0200:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:53:13AM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > What came out of this thread? Is this one of the known corruption kinds?
>
> It doesn't seem to be known.
> It could be a flipped bits on the hard drive for all we kn
3 matches
Mail list logo
