You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Andreas J. Koenig" <an...@anima.de> on 2002/12/28 16:06:41 UTC
Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
As I understood the documentation, the 'svn st -u' command always
shows which files would need updating. So how can this happen:
% svn st -u
Head revision: 67
% svn st -u -v
56 54 k .
56 6 k cron-daily.pl
* 56 44 k crontab.root
56 6 k gmls-lR.pl
56 6 k mirror_wget_rsync.sh
56 26 k mldistwatch
65 65 k mysql-dump.pl
56 6 k publish-crontab.sh
56 36 k restart-httpd
56 6 k rm_stale_links
56 6 k run_mirrors.sh
59 59 k svn-dump.pl
56 6 k sync-04pause.sh
56 37 k update-checksums.pl
Head revision: 67
This seems to be illegal behaviour: the first command should show
crontab.root as being out of date.
I see this behaviour with an svn client at rev. 4196 and a server at
rev. 3987.
If I now run the update command...
% svn up
U crontab.root
Updated to revision 67.
I get crontab.root updated indeed and status shows me:
% svn st -u -v
67 65 k .
67 6 k cron-daily.pl
67 63 k crontab.root
67 6 k gmls-lR.pl
67 6 k mirror_wget_rsync.sh
67 26 k mldistwatch
67 65 k mysql-dump.pl
67 6 k publish-crontab.sh
67 36 k restart-httpd
67 6 k rm_stale_links
67 6 k run_mirrors.sh
67 59 k svn-dump.pl
67 6 k sync-04pause.sh
67 37 k update-checksums.pl
Head revision: 67
I think, this is either a bug or I'm missing something. You decide:-)
--
andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by "Andreas J. Koenig" <an...@anima.de>.
>>>>> On 28 Dec 2002 13:50:09 -0600, Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net> said:
> Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>> Er, Karl, look at his post again. That's the output of the second
>> command, not the first one.
> Whups -- thanks, Brane, I missed the first command and saw only the
> second (with "-v"). Sorry, Andreas :-).
I forgive you;)
> Yup, this is a bug. However, I'm not able to reproduce it with a
> relatively recent client, operating against the (recently upgraded)
> server at svn.collab.net:
> $ svn st -u
> * 4195 doc/book/book/ch06.xml
> Head revision: 4196
> $
> (If I run 'svn st -uv', it agrees that ch06.xml is the only file
> needing an update.)
It's not broken all the time. So far I have only seen it with this
single file. As if "crontab.root" would be a reserved filename.
> Andreas, can you reproduce this with your same working copy and
> repository, but using HEAD for both server and client?
Yes.
Here is a small testcase. Starting with an empty repository I run the
following commands:
mkdir ws1 ws2
cd ws1
svn co http://k75/svn/test ./
svn mkdir cron
date > cron/crontab.root
svn add cron/crontab.root
svn ci -m ''
cd ../ws2
svn co http://k75/svn/test ./
cd -
date > cron/crontab.root
svn ci -m ''
cd -
svn st -u
svn st -u -v
The last two commands as seen on my terminal:
10:29:17 k@k242:~/tmp/svn-crontab-bug/ws2% svn st -u
Head revision: 2
10:29:20 k@k242:~/tmp/svn-crontab-bug/ws2% svn st -u -v
1 1 k .
1 1 k cron
* 1 1 k cron/crontab.root
Head revision: 2
--
andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig) writes:
> I've determined the relevant patch: 4181.
Thanks for tracking it down!
(Looks like that was my bad, then.)
> I hope that my test case finds its way into the test suite.
Yes, I will do this when I fix the bug.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by "Andreas J. Koenig" <an...@anima.de>.
>>>>> On 29 Dec 2002 10:22:29 -0600, Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net> said:
> Yup. Wonder if it's related to Andreas' bug...
I've determined the relevant patch: 4181.
As it's a client bug, it was easy to binary-search through svn clients.
I hope that my test case finds its way into the test suite.
--
andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> writes:
> For the last three days now, every morning I run 'svn st -u', followed
> immediately by 'svn up', and I always get *different* results! Here
> are my transcripts:
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> DAY 1
>
> $ svn st -u
> M 4192 notes/autoversioning-strategy.txt
> S 4193 subversion/mod_dav_svn
> M 4193 subversion/mod_dav_svn/deadprops.c
> Head revision: 4194
>
> $ svn up
> U subversion/include/svn_props.h
> Updated to revision 4194.
Ooooh. Yeah, why didn't it show svn_props.h as needing updating?
> DAY 2
>
> $ svn st -u
> M 4195 doc/book/outline.txt
> M 4195 notes/autoversioning-strategy.txt
> S 4195 subversion/mod_dav_svn
> Head revision: 4196
There must have been one other update, too, since you went from 4194
to 4195.
> $ svn up
> U doc/book/book/ch06.xml
> Updated to revision 4196.
Same with ch06.xml...
> DAY 3
>
> $ svn st -u
> M 4196 doc/book/outline.txt
> M 4196 notes/autoversioning-strategy.txt
> * notes/webdav-proxy
> S 4196 subversion/mod_dav_svn
> Head revision: 4204
>
> $ svn up
> A notes/webdav-proxy
> U subversion/svnadmin/main.c
> U subversion/svnlook/main.c
> U packages/rpm/redhat-7.x/subversion.spec
> U packages/rpm/redhat-8.x/subversion.spec
> Updated to revision 4204.
Well, I'm glad to see it noticed at least *one* of the outdated files
when you ran status :-(.
> Needless to say, I find this more than a little bit disturbing. :-(
>
> Can anyone else reproduce this? I wonder if it has something to do
> with having a switched subdir. My guess is that to reproduce, you
> simply need to 1. backdate your working copy a few revisions, so it's
> out of date ('svn up -r'), and 2. switch a subdir to a branch.
>
> This looks like a big, big bug to me.
Yup. Wonder if it's related to Andreas' bug...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> Yup, this is a bug. However, I'm not able to reproduce it with a
> relatively recent client, operating against the (recently upgraded)
> server at svn.collab.net:
I have another status bug. I don't know if this is related to
Andreas' bug or not.
For the last week, my working copy has contained one switched
subdirectory; my mod_dav_svn subdir has been switched to the
autoversioning branch.
For the last three days now, every morning I run 'svn st -u', followed
immediately by 'svn up', and I always get *different* results! Here
are my transcripts:
-----------------------------------------------
DAY 1
$ svn st -u
M 4192 notes/autoversioning-strategy.txt
S 4193 subversion/mod_dav_svn
M 4193 subversion/mod_dav_svn/deadprops.c
Head revision: 4194
$ svn up
U subversion/include/svn_props.h
Updated to revision 4194.
DAY 2
$ svn st -u
M 4195 doc/book/outline.txt
M 4195 notes/autoversioning-strategy.txt
S 4195 subversion/mod_dav_svn
Head revision: 4196
$ svn up
U doc/book/book/ch06.xml
Updated to revision 4196.
DAY 3
$ svn st -u
M 4196 doc/book/outline.txt
M 4196 notes/autoversioning-strategy.txt
* notes/webdav-proxy
S 4196 subversion/mod_dav_svn
Head revision: 4204
$ svn up
A notes/webdav-proxy
U subversion/svnadmin/main.c
U subversion/svnlook/main.c
U packages/rpm/redhat-7.x/subversion.spec
U packages/rpm/redhat-8.x/subversion.spec
Updated to revision 4204.
-----------------------------------------------
Needless to say, I find this more than a little bit disturbing. :-(
Can anyone else reproduce this? I wonder if it has something to do
with having a switched subdir. My guess is that to reproduce, you
simply need to 1. backdate your working copy a few revisions, so it's
out of date ('svn up -r'), and 2. switch a subdir to a branch.
This looks like a big, big bug to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> Er, Karl, look at his post again. That's the output of the second
> command, not the first one.
Whups -- thanks, Brane, I missed the first command and saw only the
second (with "-v"). Sorry, Andreas :-).
Yup, this is a bug. However, I'm not able to reproduce it with a
relatively recent client, operating against the (recently upgraded)
server at svn.collab.net:
$ svn st -u
* 4195 doc/book/book/ch06.xml
Head revision: 4196
$
(If I run 'svn st -uv', it agrees that ch06.xml is the only file
needing an update.)
Andreas, can you reproduce this with your same working copy and
repository, but using HEAD for both server and client?
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Karl Fogel wrote:
>andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig) writes:
>
>
>>Head revision: 67
>>% svn st -u -v
>> 56 54 k .
>> 56 6 k cron-daily.pl
>> * 56 44 k crontab.root
>> 56 6 k gmls-lR.pl
>> 56 6 k mirror_wget_rsync.sh
>> 56 26 k mldistwatch
>> 65 65 k mysql-dump.pl
>> 56 6 k publish-crontab.sh
>> 56 36 k restart-httpd
>> 56 6 k rm_stale_links
>> 56 6 k run_mirrors.sh
>> 59 59 k svn-dump.pl
>> 56 6 k sync-04pause.sh
>> 56 37 k update-checksums.pl
>>Head revision: 67
>>
>>
>>This seems to be illegal behaviour: the first command should show
>>crontab.root as being out of date.
>>
>>
>
>It does -- that's what the "*" means.
>
>
Er, Karl, look at his post again. That's the output of the second
command, not the first one.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is this 'status -u' behaviour correct?
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig) writes:
> Head revision: 67
> % svn st -u -v
> 56 54 k .
> 56 6 k cron-daily.pl
> * 56 44 k crontab.root
> 56 6 k gmls-lR.pl
> 56 6 k mirror_wget_rsync.sh
> 56 26 k mldistwatch
> 65 65 k mysql-dump.pl
> 56 6 k publish-crontab.sh
> 56 36 k restart-httpd
> 56 6 k rm_stale_links
> 56 6 k run_mirrors.sh
> 59 59 k svn-dump.pl
> 56 6 k sync-04pause.sh
> 56 37 k update-checksums.pl
> Head revision: 67
>
>
> This seems to be illegal behaviour: the first command should show
> crontab.root as being out of date.
It does -- that's what the "*" means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org