[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:14:03 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:45:00PM -0800, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> In theory, the server had a copy of the client file to do the patch in
> the first place and the client copy either became stale or was corrupted
> while the server copy was being used to generate a patch.

Or the client file changed but its timestamp did not.  In a
sandbox in which file foo needs to be updated ("U" status from
"cvs -nq update"):
    $ cp -p foo foo.stamp
    $ vi foo    # make some changes
    $ touch -r foo.stamp foo
    $ cvs ci foo
If it's a remote sandbox, that provokes the checksum error
followed by a full fetch; whether the sandbox is remote or local,
the user's changes are irrecoverably lost.  (I don't know how
that situation might occur in real usage; I did it artificially
while researching my previous message in this thread :-)


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
It must be said that they would have sounded better if the singer
wouldn't throw his fellow band members to the ground and toss the
drum kit around during songs.
        - Patrick Lenneau

reply via email to

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