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

[James Blackwell]

> 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>
>> >=20
>> >     > Shouldn't the algorithm look for the tag at the "bottom" location
>> >     > _first_?  And only if no tag is found, to search the top?
>> >=20
>> > 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.....=20
>>=20
>> 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...
>>=20
>> > but it appears to have been slightly botched in the
>> > current instance.
>>=20
>> 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'.

We can get the same behavior by performing the following:

1. today, change the panic into a stderr warning that support for 
   this truncated id is going away

2. in  1.2.2 < x < 1.3.0 we turn the stderr back into a panic.


Here's a big question I got: Tom, did some 1.2.2 stuff sneak into your
1.2.1 release? 


-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400