Re: [Gnu-arch-users] PANIC: Top-of-file arch tag crosses 1k boundary

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 14:01 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 21:13 -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> >     > From: "Robert Anderson" <address@hidden>
> > 
> >     > Shouldn't the algorithm look for the tag at the "bottom" location
> >     > _first_?  And only if no tag is found, to search the top?
> > 
> > Unfortunate backwards compatability issue there.   No, it needs to
> > search the top first.   The recently added error check is a good thing
> > -- it should even be mirrored to check truncation of tags at the
> > bottom..... 
> 
> IIRC There's not need to check that - it starts at the beginning of the
> first line in the buffer, which means a truncated tag at the bottom will
> not match at all. And as the bottom is the tail of the file, it can't
> truncate content there...
> 
> > but it appears to have been slightly botched in the
> > current instance.
> 
> How so?

I can think of one thing, which I overlooked initially - Panicing, while
the right thing to do to prevent unexpected A+D pairs for folk, breaks
the ability to check out code created while truncation was allowed.

I'm inclined to think that we want to resurrect truncation while doing a
'tla get'.

Rob

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part