bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Two head revisions?


From: Derek R. Price
Subject: Re: Two head revisions?
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:18:08 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313)

One extra piece of data:  Jane's 1.4 content appears to be identical to
the recreated 1.3 content.  This may or may not be a red herring, but
there is a new log message, though I have no current proof that Jane's
1.4 was not originally a force-commit without any changes.

Unfortunately, none of this gets me much closer to an answer.  I
want to suspect locking issues, but if it was a locking issue, it seems
extremely unlikely that the data would line up so exactly.

Regards,

Derek


Derek R. Price wrote:
> Has anyone ever seen RCS archive corruption in the form of two head
> revisions or have any idea how it may have come about?
> 
> It appears to have happened as part of a commit.  The head revision was
> initially 1.4.  CVS overwrote the metadata entry for 1.4 (commit time,
> author, state, branches, next), but put a second, undiffed entry for the
> head revision after the first.  So, before the commit, the file probably
> looked like:
> 
> RCSHEADER
> 
> 1.4
> date YYYY.MM.DD.hh.mm.ss;     author janedoe; state Exp;
> branches;
> next  1.3;
> 
> [REVISION METADATA 1.3-1.1)
> 
> desc
> @@
> 
> 1.4
> log
> @what jane did
> @
> text
> @jane's content
> @
> 
> 1.3
> log
> @what's gone before
> @
> text
> @a diff from jane's content
> @
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, after the (otherwise successful) commit:
> 
> RCSHEADER
> 
> 1.4
> date YYYY.MM.DD.hh.mm.ss;     author joeschmoe;       state Exp;
> branches;
> next  1.3;
> 
> [REVISION METADATA 1.3-1.1)
> 
> desc
> @@
> 
> 1.4
> log
> @what jane did
> @
> text
> @jane's content
> @
> 
> 1.4
> log
> @what joe did
> @
> text
> @joe's content (based on jane's content, but not the diff from it)
> @
> 
> 1.3
> log
> @what's gone before
> @
> text
> @a diff from joe's content
> @
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> I know for a fact that the final 1.3 text is a diff from joe's content,
> because if I reconstruct the file minus joe's head revision, I get an
> "invalid change text" error checking out 1.3, but if I reconstruct it
> minus jane's head revision, revision 1.3 will check out.
> 
> Using the two head revisions, I cannot reproduce this problem via a
> simple commit.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Derek


-- 
Derek R. Price
CVS Solutions Architect
Ximbiot <http://ximbiot.com>
v: +1 248.835.1260
f: +1 248.835.1263
<address@hidden>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]