You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Daniel Sparing <da...@gmail.com> on 2011/10/13 16:28:21 UTC
checksum error upgrading working copy
Dear fellow subversion users,
as requested by the error message, i would like to report an error as
the following:
---8<---
In file
'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7.0\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_wc\entries.c'
line 1935: assertion failed (svn_checksum_match(entry_md5_checksum,
found_md5_checksum))
---8<---
what i was doing: I updated my TortoiseSVN client to 1.7.0, then tried
to upgrade my two working copies to the new 1.7 format, one of them
succeeded, the other one repeatedly returns the error message above.
daniel
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Daniel Sparing wrote:
>> Dear fellow subversion users,
>>
>> as requested by the error message, i would like to report an error as
>> the following:
>>
>> ---8<---
>> In file
>> 'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7.0\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_wc\entries.c'
>> line 1935: assertion failed (svn_checksum_match(entry_md5_checksum,
>> found_md5_checksum))
>> ---8<---
>>
>> what i was doing: I updated my TortoiseSVN client to 1.7.0, then tried
>> to upgrade my two working copies to the new 1.7 format, one of them
>> succeeded, the other one repeatedly returns the error message above.
>>
>> daniel
>
> You had a broken 1.6 working copy which cannot be upgraded.
> See http://svn.haxx.se/tsvnusers/archive-2011-10/0086.shtml
I wonder how the working copy got broken. A bug in 1.6? If so, we
should do as much as possible to work around it.
> We've been getting this report a lot lately.
> Maybe it's time to add this to the FAQ?
Definitely.
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:02:16PM -0700, Mike Dixon wrote:
> PS. It seems kind of unfortunate that stack traces aren't included
> in the reports. I'd guess that that would help you figure out what's
> going on better than relying on users to put in a useful text
> description about what they were doing at the time...
Stefan Küng gets some stack traces and reports them to the dev list.
E.g. see http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-10/0193.shtml
and http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-10/0195.shtml
I don't know if a stack trace is sent every time TSVN crashes,
but I doubt it. A stack trace might contain sensitive information
so it should be up to the user to decide whether to send it.
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Mike Dixon <mi...@denovosoftware.com>.
On 10/13/2011 3:55 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Isn't there a better place to recommend sending the error report than
>>> a user's mail list?
>>
>> The project has decided long ago to filter problem reports on the
>> users mailing list. There are several reasons for this.
>> See the big yellow box at http://subversion.tigris.org/issue-tracker.html
>
> I can understand verifying that some unusual/questionable behavior is
> really a bug, but when the program itself generates an exception
> report there is not much question that it is a bug and not something
> other users can help with - devs, maybe.
From the volume and mixed quality of reports, I'm guessing you don't
want this kind of stuff going straight to dev@. But as mentioned, there
also isn't much that other users can do about it.
So I guess, what's the goal? Probably it's that someone (likely a dev)
will look at all the reports coming in, maybe email back to a couple of
the senders to get more details, then eventually add new issues as
appropriate. Some kind of human filtering mechanism to distil the raw
reports into concrete issues.
bugreports@s.a.o?
-Mike
PS. It seems kind of unfortunate that stack traces aren't included in
the reports. I'd guess that that would help you figure out what's going
on better than relying on users to put in a useful text description
about what they were doing at the time...
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:55:20PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> > The project has decided long ago to filter problem reports on the
> > users mailing list. There are several reasons for this.
> > See the big yellow box at http://subversion.tigris.org/issue-tracker.html
>
> I can understand verifying that some unusual/questionable behavior is
> really a bug, but when the program itself generates an exception
> report there is not much question that it is a bug and not something
> other users can help with - devs, maybe.
Users can also help other users, for example by pointing out if the
problem is already known and maybe also explaining how to work around it.
As recently witnessed in several replies to these reports.
If these reports only went to the dev list there would be less people
with enough time to handle these reports. We're trying to spread the
workload among all members of the community.
If you feel that this causes unnecessary traffic on this list,
please keep in mind that we released 1.7.0 just two days ago.
The number of such reports will always be higher than usual
immediately after a point zero release.
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>>
>> > We've been getting this report a lot lately.
>> > Maybe it's time to add this to the FAQ?
>> >
>> > I also think we should change the assert into a proper error message.
>> >
>>
>> Isn't there a better place to recommend sending the error report than
>> a user's mail list?
>
> The project has decided long ago to filter problem reports on the
> users mailing list. There are several reasons for this.
> See the big yellow box at http://subversion.tigris.org/issue-tracker.html
I can understand verifying that some unusual/questionable behavior is
really a bug, but when the program itself generates an exception
report there is not much question that it is a bug and not something
other users can help with - devs, maybe.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:50:45PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> >
> > We've been getting this report a lot lately.
> > Maybe it's time to add this to the FAQ?
> >
> > I also think we should change the assert into a proper error message.
> >
>
> Isn't there a better place to recommend sending the error report than
> a user's mail list?
The project has decided long ago to filter problem reports on the
users mailing list. There are several reasons for this.
See the big yellow box at http://subversion.tigris.org/issue-tracker.html
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>
> We've been getting this report a lot lately.
> Maybe it's time to add this to the FAQ?
>
> I also think we should change the assert into a proper error message.
>
Isn't there a better place to recommend sending the error report than
a user's mail list?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Philip Martin
<ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com> writes:
>
>> Another option might be to run a pre-upgrade check to ensure this type
>> of error doesn't exist, before we irrevocably upgrade (and potentially
>> hose) the working copy.
>
> This is happening during upgrade so the working copy remains a 1.6
> working copy.
Ah. I thought this was related to the post-upgrade workqueue checksum
assert we've also been seeing.
/me grumbles something about wishing people would have tested the
release candidates.
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com> writes:
> Another option might be to run a pre-upgrade check to ensure this type
> of error doesn't exist, before we irrevocably upgrade (and potentially
> hose) the working copy.
This is happening during upgrade so the working copy remains a 1.6
working copy.
--
Philip
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Philip Martin
<ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Daniel Sparing wrote:
>>> Dear fellow subversion users,
>>>
>>> as requested by the error message, i would like to report an error as
>>> the following:
>>>
>>> ---8<---
>>> In file
>>> 'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7.0\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_wc\entries.c'
>>> line 1935: assertion failed (svn_checksum_match(entry_md5_checksum,
>>> found_md5_checksum))
>>> ---8<---
>>>
>>> what i was doing: I updated my TortoiseSVN client to 1.7.0, then tried
>>> to upgrade my two working copies to the new 1.7 format, one of them
>>> succeeded, the other one repeatedly returns the error message above.
>>>
>>> daniel
>>
>> You had a broken 1.6 working copy which cannot be upgraded.
>> See http://svn.haxx.se/tsvnusers/archive-2011-10/0086.shtml
>>
>> We've been getting this report a lot lately.
>> Maybe it's time to add this to the FAQ?
>>
>> I also think we should change the assert into a proper error message.
>
> In this particular case one of the checksum values in one of the
> .svn/entries files doesn't match the checksum of the corresponding file
> in .svn/text-base. The incorrect checksum won't show up as an error in
> 1.6 until an update or commit attempts to modify the corresponding file.
> The 1.7 upgrade process checks all checksums so it will detect errors
> that lie dormant in 1.6 working copies.
>
> I agree we should be returning a better error, one that includes the
> name of the file with the incorrect checksum.
Another option might be to run a pre-upgrade check to ensure this type
of error doesn't exist, before we irrevocably upgrade (and potentially
hose) the working copy.
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:29:03PM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> In this particular case one of the checksum values in one of the
> .svn/entries files doesn't match the checksum of the corresponding file
> in .svn/text-base. The incorrect checksum won't show up as an error in
> 1.6 until an update or commit attempts to modify the corresponding file.
> The 1.7 upgrade process checks all checksums so it will detect errors
> that lie dormant in 1.6 working copies.
>
> I agree we should be returning a better error, one that includes the
> name of the file with the incorrect checksum.
See r1182904 and r1182909.
I'll nominate them for 1.7.1 shortly.
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Daniel Sparing wrote:
>> Dear fellow subversion users,
>>
>> as requested by the error message, i would like to report an error as
>> the following:
>>
>> ---8<---
>> In file
>> 'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7.0\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_wc\entries.c'
>> line 1935: assertion failed (svn_checksum_match(entry_md5_checksum,
>> found_md5_checksum))
>> ---8<---
>>
>> what i was doing: I updated my TortoiseSVN client to 1.7.0, then tried
>> to upgrade my two working copies to the new 1.7 format, one of them
>> succeeded, the other one repeatedly returns the error message above.
>>
>> daniel
>
> You had a broken 1.6 working copy which cannot be upgraded.
> See http://svn.haxx.se/tsvnusers/archive-2011-10/0086.shtml
>
> We've been getting this report a lot lately.
> Maybe it's time to add this to the FAQ?
>
> I also think we should change the assert into a proper error message.
In this particular case one of the checksum values in one of the
.svn/entries files doesn't match the checksum of the corresponding file
in .svn/text-base. The incorrect checksum won't show up as an error in
1.6 until an update or commit attempts to modify the corresponding file.
The 1.7 upgrade process checks all checksums so it will detect errors
that lie dormant in 1.6 working copies.
I agree we should be returning a better error, one that includes the
name of the file with the incorrect checksum.
--
Philip
Re: checksum error upgrading working copy
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Daniel Sparing wrote:
> Dear fellow subversion users,
>
> as requested by the error message, i would like to report an error as
> the following:
>
> ---8<---
> In file
> 'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7.0\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_wc\entries.c'
> line 1935: assertion failed (svn_checksum_match(entry_md5_checksum,
> found_md5_checksum))
> ---8<---
>
> what i was doing: I updated my TortoiseSVN client to 1.7.0, then tried
> to upgrade my two working copies to the new 1.7 format, one of them
> succeeded, the other one repeatedly returns the error message above.
>
> daniel
You had a broken 1.6 working copy which cannot be upgraded.
See http://svn.haxx.se/tsvnusers/archive-2011-10/0086.shtml
We've been getting this report a lot lately.
Maybe it's time to add this to the FAQ?
I also think we should change the assert into a proper error message.