(Just changing the subject so mergeinfo gurus spot this thread too.
tldr: #4129 also explains a bug whereby FSFS minfo-cnt values were set
to the value read from uninitialized memory (and which might therefore
have been smaller than the correct value).)
Philip Martin wrote on Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at
Philip Martin writes:
> Moving update_ancestry from tree.c to dag.c is one way to fix the
> problem.
This was applied in r1302613. I believe this also fixes the minfo-cnt
corruption that has been observed. To reproduce apply the following
patch to the old client to allow commit to be paused:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Justin Johnson wrote on Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:03:04 -0500:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 00:49:06 +0200:
> > > > The time until 1.7.5 is counted in weeks,
Justin Johnson wrote on Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:03:04 -0500:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 00:49:06 +0200:
> > > The time until 1.7.5 is counted in weeks, and 1.6.18 is scheduled to be
> > > released next week.
> > >
> >
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 00:49:06 +0200:
> > The time until 1.7.5 is counted in weeks, and 1.6.18 is scheduled to be
> > released next week.
> >
>
> The fix was merged to 1.6.x@HEAD today and barring surprises will be
> in
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 00:49:06 +0200:
> The time until 1.7.5 is counted in weeks, and 1.6.18 is scheduled to be
> released next week.
>
The fix was merged to 1.6.x@HEAD today and barring surprises will be
included in 1.6.18.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700:
>> Hello Daniel, Philip.
>>
>> I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re:
>> predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong me
Hello Daniel, Philip.
I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re:
predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message".
It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job.
Do you need any more information from me at this point? Thanks.
Jason Wong.
s reproducible Re:
> >> predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message".
> >> It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job.
> >>
> >> Do you need any more information from me at this point? Thanks.
> >>
> >
> &
Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700:
> Hello Daniel, Philip.
>
> I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re:
> predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message".
> It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job.
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 18:45:37 +:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
> > If I use the debugger to manually set target->node_revision to NULL
> > inside svn_fs_fs__dag_increment_mergeinfo_count then the commit works.
> > I'm not exactly sure how all the FSFS caching layers are sup
Philip Martin writes:
> If I use the debugger to manually set target->node_revision to NULL
> inside svn_fs_fs__dag_increment_mergeinfo_count then the commit works.
> I'm not exactly sure how all the FSFS caching layers are supposed to
> interact. Is tree.c:update_ancestry supposed to update the
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 18:31:41 +:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400:
> >> Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > % ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb
> > 2012-03-19 20:2
On 03/19/2012 02:24 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
>> Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
>
> Yes, I think it is.
>
> For BDB the dag_node_t type in dag.c doesn't have a node_revision
> member. When update_ancestry does svn_fs_bdb__put_node_revision it
> writes
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400:
>> Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
>
> No.
>
> % ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb
> 2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] CWD:
> /home/daniel/src/svn/t1/subversion/tests/cmdline
> 2012
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> On 03/19/2012 01:25 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Philip Martin writes:
>>
>>> I can reproduce ove ra_local:
>>>
>>> svnadmin create repo
>>> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
>>> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
>>> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
>>> svn co file://`p
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400:
> Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
No.
% ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb
2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] CWD:
/home/daniel/src/svn/t1/subversion/tests/cmdline
2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] EXCEPTION: Fa
On 03/19/2012 01:25 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> I can reproduce ove ra_local:
>>
>> svnadmin create repo
>> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
>> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
>> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
>> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2
>> svn ps svn:mergeinfo /P:2
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:25:22 +:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
> > I can reproduce ove ra_local:
> >
> > svnadmin create repo
> > svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
> > svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
> > svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
> > svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2
> > sv
Philip Martin writes:
> I can reproduce ove ra_local:
>
> svnadmin create repo
> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2
> svn ps svn:mergeinfo /P:2 wc1/A
> svn ps svn:mergeinfo /Q:2 wc2/B
> svn mkdir wc1/
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> The bug reproduced with either "ServerLimit 1" or "ThreadLimit 1" in
> httpd.conf. (That forced both commits to be served by the same process
> (resp., by different processes).) I use httpd 2.4.1 with event MPM.
I can reproduce ove ra_local:
svnadmin create repo
svn mk
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 16:28:21 +0200:
> [ cc += dev@. summary for dev@: investigating issue #4129: predecessor
> count of rN is not incremented by one wrt that of r(N-1); see
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4129 ]
Okay, count me happy :-) I can reprodu
Daniel Shahaf writes:
>> From what is there so far, yes. We do have different operations
>> occurring at the same time, but for these ones, I see MERGE and DELETE
>> verbs overlapping in the same or near time intervals according to the
>> Apache logs. I just did a quick look in the Apache logs du
[ cc += dev@. summary for dev@: investigating issue #4129: predecessor
count of rN is not incremented by one wrt that of r(N-1); see
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4129 ]
Jason Wong wrote on Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:57:47 -0700:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Daniel Shahaf
24 matches
Mail list logo
