[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it sho ul

From: Reinstein, Shlomo
Subject: RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it sho uld have !
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:23:41 +0200


I have ran the test with the repo local to the CVS server, and it shows the
same behavior. Which brings me to the conclusion that the client/server
protocol does not function as expected. Here's the scenario: (Can be done by
the same user on the same machine)

1. Create the repository:
cvs -d :ext:<username>@<server>:<path-to-repository> init

2. Create a test project: ('proj')
mkdir temp
cd temp
echo nonsense1 > a
echo nonsense2 > b
cvs -d :ext:<username>@<server>:<path-to-repository> import -m "New repo"
proj dummy v1
cd ..

3. Get 2 working copies:
mkdir w1
cd w1
cvs -d :ext:<username>@<server>:<path-to-repository> get proj
cd ..
mkdir w2
cd w2
cvs -d :ext:<username>@<server>:<path-to-repository> get proj
cd ..

4. Modify two different files in the two working copies and commit them:
cd w1/proj
echo morenonsense >> a
cvs ci
cd ../../w2/proj
echo morenonsense >> b
cvs ci

You'll see that despite the fact that w2/proj is not up-to-date, the commit
will succeed.

5. See that both copies are actually not up-to-date:
cd ../..
cd w1/proj
cvs status b
cd ../../w2/proj
cvs status a


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Siegerman [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:42 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 08:37:12PM +0200, Reinstein, Shlomo wrote:
> I also checked that this strange behavior was not fixed in CVS 1.11.1p1.
> don't know about the newer versions (e.g., 1.15.1), I will check this as
> well.

Darn!  I was really hoping that was it.  Well, maybe it's fixed
in 1.11.5, but this new data point makes me less hopeful of that.

> What's wrong with the repository being on NFS?

Larry summed that up admirably.

Since you have a small reproducible test, could you try it with
the repo *not* NFS-mounted, but local to the CVS server?  Even if
it still fails (as I half-suspect it will), at least we can stop
harping on the NFS thing and look elsewhere :-) So whichever the
outcome, it won't have been wasted effort.


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
A distributed system is one on which I cannot get any work done,
because a machine I have never heard of has crashed.
        - Leslie Lamport
Or has an NFS implementation that won't interoperate with mine.
        - me

Info-cvs mailing list

reply via email to

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