You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by vb...@siuh.edu on 2003/07/25 20:14:12 UTC
hot-backup.py not saving latest logs(Scanned for viruses: Notes Admin)
After going through the code it looks like "svnadmin archive" will only
return list of unused log files. However, hot-backup.py uses the output
of "svnadmin archive" to recopy Berkeley logfiles. Would this not miss
any log entries made while databases were copied?
Sincerely,
Vladimir Berezniker
Re: hot-backup.py not saving latest logs(Scanned for viruses: Notes Admin)
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> <vb...@siuh.edu> writes:
>
> > After going through the code it looks like "svnadmin archive" will only
> > return list of unused log files. However, hot-backup.py uses the output
> > of "svnadmin archive" to recopy Berkeley logfiles. Would this not miss
> > any log entries made while databases were copied?
>
> Yes, it would appear that sussman's change in revision 6392 (where he
> replaced calls to 'db_archive' with calls to 'svnlook archive') was
> misguided. I'm guessing that he didn't notice that we called
> db_archive in two different ways (with -l in step 3, -a in step 6),
> and that 'svnadmin archive' only handles one of those two ways.
>
> I'll revert that change immediately. Thanks for catching this!
Yikes! So sorry, guys!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: hot-backup.py not saving latest logs(Scanned for viruses: Notes Admin)
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
<vb...@siuh.edu> writes:
> After going through the code it looks like "svnadmin archive" will only
> return list of unused log files. However, hot-backup.py uses the output
> of "svnadmin archive" to recopy Berkeley logfiles. Would this not miss
> any log entries made while databases were copied?
Yes, it would appear that sussman's change in revision 6392 (where he
replaced calls to 'db_archive' with calls to 'svnlook archive') was
misguided. I'm guessing that he didn't notice that we called
db_archive in two different ways (with -l in step 3, -a in step 6),
and that 'svnadmin archive' only handles one of those two ways.
I'll revert that change immediately. Thanks for catching this!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org