You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Igor d <ig...@gmail.com> on 2011/10/18 13:19:03 UTC
Help! Subversion Exception!
This excepted when i tried to upgrade dir to 1.7 version of svn
---------------------------
Subversion Exception!
---------------------------
Subversion encountered a serious problem.
Please take the time to report this on the Subversion mailing list
(users@subversion.apache.org)
with as much information as possible about what
you were trying to do.
But please first search the mailing list archives for the error message
to avoid reporting the same problem repeatedly.
You can find the mailing list archives at
http://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
Subversion reported the following
(you can copy the content of this dialog
to the clipboard using Ctrl-C):
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))
---------------------------
ОК
---------------------------
help me.
Igor
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Kurt Pruenner <le...@gmx.at>.
On 18.10.11 16:20, Igor d wrote:
> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you
> propose me to checkout??? You are crazy?
Move your old, existing working copy out of the way, check out a new one
in it's place, use WinMerge to copy the changed source files from the
old to the new working copy. Done.
--
Kurt Bernhard Pruenner --- Haendelstrasse 17 --- 4020 Linz --- Austria
np: Mogwai - Death Rays (Hardcore Will Never Die, But You Will)
RE: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by James French <Ja...@naturalmotion.com>.
Upgrading to svn 1.7 whose principal feature is a major change to the working copy, with local mods, is just plain dumb.
From: Igor d [mailto:igoronix@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 October 2011 15:20
To: Igor d; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose me to checkout??? You are crazy?
RE: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Andreas Tscharner <an...@metromec.ch>.
> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in
> sources, you propose me to checkout??? You are crazy?
>
Make a fresh checkout to the revision of your current working directory and copy any file you have modified to the new working copy using a diff tool like KDiff3 or Beyond Compare.
Best regards
Andreas
--
Andreas Tscharner <an...@metromec.ch>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Intruder on level one. All Aliens please proceed to level one."
-- Call in "Alien: Resurrection"
Open House am 26. und 27.10.11
Am 26. und 27. Oktober 2011 findet das Wenzel Metromec Open House in Chur statt.
Tauchen Sie ein in interessante Fachreferate und Workshops.
Besichtigen Sie topaktuelle Exponate aus dem Hause WENZEL.
Erfahren Sie mehr über unsere Produkte und Dienstleistungen.
Interessante Open House Aktionsangebote warten auf Sie.
Am Ende jedes Tages verlosen wir unter den Besuchern eine 3D-Maus 3Dconnexion SpaceExplorer im Wert von CHF 460.-
Anmeldung bis Freitag 21. Oktober 2011 unter
http://www.metromec.ch/de/component/content/article/39/308-wenzel-metromec-open-house.html
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Andreas Krey <a....@gmx.de>.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:43:58 +0000, Bob Archer wrote:
...
> You tried to upgrade a working copy with pending changes in it? Are you crazy?
I'm not aware that you can run two tortoises in parallel, which means
you have no chance of not upgrading an old WC if you want to update
it -> all of our WC have to be clean when upgrading, which would
be pretty hard on me.
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 14:03:58 -0500:
> Is there any tool that you can run to do a corruption check on a 1.6
> working copy that does not overwrite a needed 1.6 program and does not
> actually do the upgrade? It seems like it would be a good thing to
> know whether or not you were ready to upgrade.
tar(1)
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 20:07:17 +0200:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:01:32PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > > I don't understand the question. As a rule, when upgrade fails the
> > > working copy remains usable by the older version of svn.
> >
> > Which you won't have any longer if you or your system administrator
> > has updated the programs.
>
> Well, this is quite an obvious and known issue. The release notes clearly
> say that newer clients do not work with older working copies
that require cleanup
> .
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:03:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>
> >> > The unlucky user should simply get a new working copy.
> >> > Working copies are and have always been considered disposable.
> >>
> >> So why bother to upgrade them at all if success is unimportant?
> >
> > You misunderstood what I meant.
>
> No, I'm just being difficult because you didn't seem to care about the
> potential for losing uncommitted changes.
There are tools to merge local changes over from a corrupt working copy
to a new working copy. Some have been mentioned recently in the various
"help! expection" threads. I'd use rsync.
> > Most reports about failed upgrades so far were due to *corrupt* 1.6
> > working copies. We cannot safely upgrade them, see Philip's reply.
> >
> > We do care about upgrading good 1.6 working copies, and have
> > fixed several bugs in 1.7.1 based on the reports we received.
>
> Is there any tool that you can run to do a corruption check on a 1.6
> working copy that does not overwrite a needed 1.6 program and does not
> actually do the upgrade?
Not that I know of, unfortunately.
How to detect corruption also depends on the kind of corruption at hand.
> It seems like it would be a good thing to
> know whether or not you were ready to upgrade.
If in doubt, commit local changes before upgrading to 1.7.
If your admin took 1.6 away from you prematurely, complain to him.
I don't think this is a big problem because there are ways to cope.
And the benefits from updating from 1.6 to 1.7 are worth the trouble
in any case.
However, bugs that prevent good working copies from upgrading are bad
and need to be fixed.
Does this make sense?
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 14:31:21 -0500:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dave Huang <kh...@azeotrope.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> No, I'm just being difficult because you didn't seem to care about the
> >> potential for losing uncommitted changes.
> >
> > Why would you lose them? The upgrade process doesn't delete or
> > modify your files, right? It only changes the contents of the .svn
> > dir.
> >
> > As has been posted (I don't remember which thread; probably not this
> > one, but in one of the numerous threads about this issue), you can
> > just use some sort of diff utility to copy your uncommitted changes
> > to a clean checkout. If you don't have any uncommitted deletes, you
> > could even just delete all .svn dirs in your broken WC, then copy
> > what's left on top of the fresh WC. Something to the effect of:
> >
> > cd $broken_wc; find . -name .svn | xargs rm -r; pax -rw . $fresh_wc
> >
> > (untested, but you get the idea)
>
> I'd sort of expect an rsync with the -C option to get it mostly right.
> But then again I would have expected a 1.6 working copy that was
> working with 1.6 programs
For the checksum issue, 1.6 would also have complained the next time it
touched the victim file. That's probably true for some of the other
reported issues too.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dave Huang <kh...@azeotrope.org> wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> No, I'm just being difficult because you didn't seem to care about the
>> potential for losing uncommitted changes.
>
> Why would you lose them? The upgrade process doesn't delete or modify your files, right? It only changes the contents of the .svn dir.
>
> As has been posted (I don't remember which thread; probably not this one, but in one of the numerous threads about this issue), you can just use some sort of diff utility to copy your uncommitted changes to a clean checkout. If you don't have any uncommitted deletes, you could even just delete all .svn dirs in your broken WC, then copy what's left on top of the fresh WC. Something to the effect of:
>
> cd $broken_wc; find . -name .svn | xargs rm -r; pax -rw . $fresh_wc
>
> (untested, but you get the idea)
I'd sort of expect an rsync with the -C option to get it mostly right.
But then again I would have expected a 1.6 working copy that was
working with 1.6 programs to not be considered corrupt by 1.7 so I'm
not sure how you'd know what to propagate over without breaking
things.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Dave Huang <kh...@azeotrope.org>.
On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> No, I'm just being difficult because you didn't seem to care about the
> potential for losing uncommitted changes.
Why would you lose them? The upgrade process doesn't delete or modify your files, right? It only changes the contents of the .svn dir.
As has been posted (I don't remember which thread; probably not this one, but in one of the numerous threads about this issue), you can just use some sort of diff utility to copy your uncommitted changes to a clean checkout. If you don't have any uncommitted deletes, you could even just delete all .svn dirs in your broken WC, then copy what's left on top of the fresh WC. Something to the effect of:
cd $broken_wc; find . -name .svn | xargs rm -r; pax -rw . $fresh_wc
(untested, but you get the idea)
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: khym@azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 35 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>> > The unlucky user should simply get a new working copy.
>> > Working copies are and have always been considered disposable.
>>
>> So why bother to upgrade them at all if success is unimportant?
>
> You misunderstood what I meant.
No, I'm just being difficult because you didn't seem to care about the
potential for losing uncommitted changes.
> Most reports about failed upgrades so far were due to *corrupt* 1.6
> working copies. We cannot safely upgrade them, see Philip's reply.
>
> We do care about upgrading good 1.6 working copies, and have
> fixed several bugs in 1.7.1 based on the reports we received.
Is there any tool that you can run to do a corruption check on a 1.6
working copy that does not overwrite a needed 1.6 program and does not
actually do the upgrade? It seems like it would be a good thing to
know whether or not you were ready to upgrade.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:53:19PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> >
> > The unlucky user should simply get a new working copy.
> > Working copies are and have always been considered disposable.
>
> So why bother to upgrade them at all if success is unimportant?
You misunderstood what I meant.
Most reports about failed upgrades so far were due to *corrupt* 1.6
working copies. We cannot safely upgrade them, see Philip's reply.
We do care about upgrading good 1.6 working copies, and have
fixed several bugs in 1.7.1 based on the reports we received.
Version 1.7.1
(24 Oct 2011, from /branches/1.7.x)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/tags/1.7.1
User-visible changes:
[...]
* fix WC upgrade with replaced nodes in edge-case (issue #4033)
[...]
* fix upgrading of WCs containing authz-restricted dirs (r1185738)
[...]
* fix 'checksum != NULL' assertions in some upgraded WCs (r1177732)
[...]
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>
> The unlucky user should simply get a new working copy.
> Working copies are and have always been considered disposable.
So why bother to upgrade them at all if success is unimportant?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:30:34PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> >
> >> > I don't understand the question. As a rule, when upgrade fails the
> >> > working copy remains usable by the older version of svn.
> >>
> >> Which you won't have any longer if you or your system administrator
> >> has updated the programs.
> >
> > Well, this is quite an obvious and known issue. The release notes clearly
> > say that newer clients do not work with older working copies.
>
> Perhaps it is obvious and known to you. I think the number of error
> reports on the list indicates that the scenarios that cause errors are
> not generally well understood. And, I'd guess that the current
> updaters are mostly self-sufficient developers working on personal
> machines and we'll see worse when the packaged updates for popular
> multiuser systems start rolling out. That is, OS system updates done
> mostly-automatically by an administrator will replace the binaries
> without an easy way back, and some users' working copies will upgrade
> successfully and some won't. In that scenario, should the unlucky
> user try to install his own copy of the old binaries if he can find
> them?
The unlucky user should simply get a new working copy.
Working copies are and have always been considered disposable.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com> writes:
> Perhaps it is obvious and known to you. I think the number of error
> reports on the list indicates that the scenarios that cause errors are
> not generally well understood.
The error in this case:
line 1935: assertion failed (svn_checksum_match(entry_md5_checksum, found_md5_checksum))
indicates that the working copy is corrupt. This is not a problem that
can be solved by running cleanup. It's possible that it could be solved
in other ways (by running "svn up -r0" on the affected files perhaps, or
"rm -rf on a subdir) but it's still risky to upgrade a corrupt working
copy as we don't know what other corruption is present.
It's possible that the corruption has lain dormant in the 1.6 working
copy for some time, the corrupt checksum will only be reconised when an
update or commit attempts to explicitly modify the file with a problem.
Other 1.6 operations won't examine the corrupt checksum. However the
1.7 upgrade has to recalculate checksums for all the files so it falls
over on such cases.
One of the things we would like to do is verify that this really is
corruption but that is hard because the error message isn't very good
(1.7.1 will do better--it will tell you which file has the problem) and
our users don't always have the tools to do it. We need sombody capable
of debugging the assertion to identify the file, and then checking the
stored checksum against the actual checksum. Alternatively somebody who
can validate all the the checksums in the working copy to see if any are
wrong. Or somebody who is prepared to send their working copy to me so
that I can do it.
--
Philip
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>
>> > I don't understand the question. As a rule, when upgrade fails the
>> > working copy remains usable by the older version of svn.
>>
>> Which you won't have any longer if you or your system administrator
>> has updated the programs.
>
> Well, this is quite an obvious and known issue. The release notes clearly
> say that newer clients do not work with older working copies.
Perhaps it is obvious and known to you. I think the number of error
reports on the list indicates that the scenarios that cause errors are
not generally well understood. And, I'd guess that the current
updaters are mostly self-sufficient developers working on personal
machines and we'll see worse when the packaged updates for popular
multiuser systems start rolling out. That is, OS system updates done
mostly-automatically by an administrator will replace the binaries
without an easy way back, and some users' working copies will upgrade
successfully and some won't. In that scenario, should the unlucky
user try to install his own copy of the old binaries if he can find
them?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:01:32PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > I don't understand the question. As a rule, when upgrade fails the
> > working copy remains usable by the older version of svn.
>
> Which you won't have any longer if you or your system administrator
> has updated the programs.
Well, this is quite an obvious and known issue. The release notes clearly
say that newer clients do not work with older working copies.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> >> How is a user supposed to know if his working copy requires cleanup?
>> >
>> > You'll get E155021.
>>
>> But only after it is too late, right? Are there any tools to check
>> this that don't overwrite the versions that might have still been able
>> to do something with the existing working copy?
>>
>
> I don't understand the question. As a rule, when upgrade fails the
> working copy remains usable by the older version of svn.
Which you won't have any longer if you or your system administrator
has updated the programs.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:47:25 -0500:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How is a user supposed to know if his working copy requires cleanup?
> >
> > You'll get E155021.
>
> But only after it is too late, right? Are there any tools to check
> this that don't overwrite the versions that might have still been able
> to do something with the existing working copy?
>
I don't understand the question. As a rule, when upgrade fails the
working copy remains usable by the older version of svn.
> >> And how should it be handled in multiuser scenarios where the svn
> >> binaries are managed and updated by someone other than the people who
> >> may have active working copies?
> >>
> >
> > Have users always run 'svn cleanup' before they leave for the night on
> > any wc's that they ^C'd during the day?
>
> Is that documented somewhere?
>
1.7 release notes.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:47:25PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How is a user supposed to know if his working copy requires cleanup?
> >
> > You'll get E155021.
>
> But only after it is too late, right? Are there any tools to check
> this that don't overwrite the versions that might have still been able
> to do something with the existing working copy?
If a working copy requires cleanup, a 1.6 client that touches the
working copy will tell you so. A 1.7 client will refuse to upgrade it.
> >> And how should it be handled in multiuser scenarios where the svn
> >> binaries are managed and updated by someone other than the people who
> >> may have active working copies?
> >>
> >
> > Have users always run 'svn cleanup' before they leave for the night on
> > any wc's that they ^C'd during the day?
>
> Is that documented somewhere?
I don't think Daniel is right here. Generally, you don't need to run
'svn cleanup' just because you cancel some SVN operation with Ctrl-C.
You need to run it after an svn client has crashed or for some other
reasons failed to clean up its locks or run pending changes from the
working copy's work queue.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>
>>
>> How is a user supposed to know if his working copy requires cleanup?
>
> You'll get E155021.
But only after it is too late, right? Are there any tools to check
this that don't overwrite the versions that might have still been able
to do something with the existing working copy?
>> And how should it be handled in multiuser scenarios where the svn
>> binaries are managed and updated by someone other than the people who
>> may have active working copies?
>>
>
> Have users always run 'svn cleanup' before they leave for the night on
> any wc's that they ^C'd during the day?
Is that documented somewhere?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Andreas Krey wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 22:07:42 +0200:
> Which I have the slight impression could be caused by user grepping
> for something and then editing the pristine copy by mistake.
The text-base files have the "read only" permission set. If people edit
them they should consider themselves on the wrong side of the "Don't do
that" fence.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Andreas Krey <a....@gmx.de>.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:27:38 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Andreas Krey wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 20:38:58 +0200:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:26:06 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Have users always run 'svn cleanup' before they leave for the night on
> > > any wc's that they ^C'd during the day?
> >
> > How about setting a 'busy' flag while svn is executing, and calling
> > for the user to invoke 'svn cleanup' if it is still set on invocation?
> > Ok, too late for that.
> >
>
> Ahem, that's exactly how has been working, since years.
Then obviously (and already agreed on elsewhere) svn cleanup is not
sufficient to avoid the checksum problem, and the advice of running
clean up after a ^C doesn't really help.
Which I have the slight impression could be caused by user grepping
for something and then editing the pristine copy by mistake.
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Andreas Krey wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 20:38:58 +0200:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:26:06 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Have users always run 'svn cleanup' before they leave for the night on
> > any wc's that they ^C'd during the day?
>
> How about setting a 'busy' flag while svn is executing, and calling
> for the user to invoke 'svn cleanup' if it is still set on invocation?
> Ok, too late for that.
>
Ahem, that's exactly how has been working, since years.
> Apart from a) the fact that under circumstances ^C does not work (in
> seems to be caught but not handled everywhere in a timely fashion, and,
> that being the case, how can svn really break the WC) and I need to
> '^Z/kill -9 %' it
Personally I prefer ^\ (SIGQUIT) in that case. As Stefan said, though,
it is fatal signals (SIGQUIT, SIGKILL, SIGSEGV) --- not SIGINT (^C) ---
that typically cause 'svn cleanup' to be required.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Andreas Krey <a....@gmx.de>.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:26:06 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
...
> > > Upgrading a working copy that requires cleanup is not.
> >
> > How is a user supposed to know if his working copy requires cleanup?
>
> You'll get E155021.
Which would then mean that I need to reinstall 1.6, cleanup, and
go back to 1.7. Imagine that on a multiuser system where svn is
installed as RPM/simile.
...
> Have users always run 'svn cleanup' before they leave for the night on
> any wc's that they ^C'd during the day?
How about setting a 'busy' flag while svn is executing, and calling
for the user to invoke 'svn cleanup' if it is still set on invocation?
Ok, too late for that.
Apart from a) the fact that under circumstances ^C does not work (in
seems to be caught but not handled everywhere in a timely fashion, and,
that being the case, how can svn really break the WC) and I need to
'^Z/kill -9 %' it (the server connect takes a little longer where I am
sometimes) and b) that svn sometimes explicitly asks to run 'svn clean'
which in exactly those cases failed to clean up.
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:20:16 -0500:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Bob Archer wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 09:43:58 -0400:
> >> >
> >> > But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose me
> >> > to checkout??? You are crazy?
> >>
> >> You tried to upgrade a working copy with pending changes in it? Are you crazy?
> >
> > Updating a working copy that contains local mods is a supported scenario.
> >
> > Upgrading a working copy that requires cleanup is not.
>
> How is a user supposed to know if his working copy requires cleanup?
You'll get E155021.
> And how should it be handled in multiuser scenarios where the svn
> binaries are managed and updated by someone other than the people who
> may have active working copies?
>
Have users always run 'svn cleanup' before they leave for the night on
any wc's that they ^C'd during the day?
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Bob Archer wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 09:43:58 -0400:
>> >
>> > But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose me
>> > to checkout??? You are crazy?
>>
>> You tried to upgrade a working copy with pending changes in it? Are you crazy?
>
> Updating a working copy that contains local mods is a supported scenario.
>
> Upgrading a working copy that requires cleanup is not.
How is a user supposed to know if his working copy requires cleanup?
And how should it be handled in multiuser scenarios where the svn
binaries are managed and updated by someone other than the people who
may have active working copies?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Bob Archer wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 09:43:58 -0400:
> >
> > But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose me
> > to checkout??? You are crazy?
>
> You tried to upgrade a working copy with pending changes in it? Are you crazy?
Updating a working copy that contains local mods is a supported scenario.
Upgrading a working copy that requires cleanup is not.
RE: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com>.
>
> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose me
> to checkout??? You are crazy?
You tried to upgrade a working copy with pending changes in it? Are you crazy?
BOb
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Andreas Krey <a....@gmx.de>.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:33:35 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
...
> Or, failing that, check all md5's in the working copy. But I expect the
> former option is far simpler for most people.
Especially as we don't know how to find the expected md5 values
within .svn directory. The other parts are easy.
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 17:53, Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> sebb <se...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> In that case, either that is an insufficient check, or the upgrade
>>> fails to act correctly on the results of the check.
>>
>> In what way? The upgrade detected the problem, stopped the upgrade and
>> left the 1.6 working copy unchanged apart from some files in .svn/tmp.
>
> I've obviously misunderstood some of the postings then.
>
> I thought there were some reports (in other threads) of issues after
> the upgrade completed.
Yes, there were also some reports about problems with using 1.7 *after
a successful upgrade* (the one with "checksum != NULL" [1], and the
one with "sha1_checksum != NULL" [2]). AFAICT, those are currently
being worked on, to improve the situation in 1.7.1 (either by handling
this situation gracefully, or by detecting the problem during the
upgrade process, and aborting the upgrade).
But if a problem happens *during upgrade* (like the one reported here
by the OP), and the upgrade gets aborted (or if you abort it
manually), you will normally still have a working 1.6 working copy
(the removal of the old .svn directories is the last step in the
upgrade -- as long as those are still present, you still have a valid
1.6 WC).
So it's possible to try and repair some things (be careful though not
to lose any uncommitted stuff while doing so -- maybe best to make a
backup copy), and retry the upgrade.
Also, AFAICT 1.7.1 will give more information about which files
exactly in your 1.6 WC are related to the corruption. So you might
still be able to upgrade after repairing the corruption (or making it
"disappear" by executing "svn up -r0 /the/corrupted/file" with your
1.6 client before retrying the upgrade).
[1] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4035
[2] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4038
--
Johan
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 October 2011 17:53, Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> sebb <se...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In that case, either that is an insufficient check, or the upgrade
>> fails to act correctly on the results of the check.
>
> In what way? The upgrade detected the problem, stopped the upgrade and
> left the 1.6 working copy unchanged apart from some files in .svn/tmp.
I've obviously misunderstood some of the postings then.
I thought there were some reports (in other threads) of issues after
the upgrade completed.
> --
> Philip
>
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
sebb <se...@gmail.com> writes:
> In that case, either that is an insufficient check, or the upgrade
> fails to act correctly on the results of the check.
In what way? The upgrade detected the problem, stopped the upgrade and
left the 1.6 working copy unchanged apart from some files in .svn/tmp.
--
Philip
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 October 2011 17:10, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> sebb wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:57:14 +0100:
>> On 18 October 2011 16:33, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> > Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24 -0500:
>> >> I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
>> >> corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
>> >> people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
>> >> How can you tell if a workspace is corrupt?
>> > (you mean "working copy")
>> >
>> > Make a copy of it and upgrade that.
>> >
>> > Or, failing that, check all md5's in the working copy. But I expect the
>> > former option is far simpler for most people.
>>
>> By checking MD5, do you mean calculate and compare the hashes for the
>> working copy and corresponding base files?
>
> Yes, svn_wc_entry_t->checksum.
>
>> If so, is that something that the upgrade process could (should) do
>> before making any changes?
>>
>
> Upgrade already does that...
In that case, either that is an insufficient check, or the upgrade
fails to act correctly on the results of the check.
>> That would also be useful as a stand-alone tool.
>
> Could be. If I were to hack it I'd base it either on libsvn_wc's
> entry-reading APIs or on change-svn-wc-format.py.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
sebb wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:57:14 +0100:
> On 18 October 2011 16:33, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24 -0500:
> >> I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
> >> corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
> >> people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
> >> How can you tell if a workspace is corrupt?
> > (you mean "working copy")
> >
> > Make a copy of it and upgrade that.
> >
> > Or, failing that, check all md5's in the working copy. But I expect the
> > former option is far simpler for most people.
>
> By checking MD5, do you mean calculate and compare the hashes for the
> working copy and corresponding base files?
Yes, svn_wc_entry_t->checksum.
> If so, is that something that the upgrade process could (should) do
> before making any changes?
>
Upgrade already does that...
> That would also be useful as a stand-alone tool.
Could be. If I were to hack it I'd base it either on libsvn_wc's
entry-reading APIs or on change-svn-wc-format.py.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 October 2011 16:33, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24 -0500:
>> I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
>> corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
>> people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
>> How can you tell if a workspace is corrupt?
> (you mean "working copy")
>
> Make a copy of it and upgrade that.
>
> Or, failing that, check all md5's in the working copy. But I expect the
> former option is far simpler for most people.
By checking MD5, do you mean calculate and compare the hashes for the
working copy and corresponding base files?
If so, is that something that the upgrade process could (should) do
before making any changes?
That would also be useful as a stand-alone tool.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24 -0500:
> I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
> corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
> people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
> How can you tell if a workspace is corrupt?
(you mean "working copy")
Make a copy of it and upgrade that.
Or, failing that, check all md5's in the working copy. But I expect the
former option is far simpler for most people.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Andreas Krey <a....@gmx.de>.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:18:24 +0000, Les Mikesell wrote:
...
> Someone in another thread mentioned doing fresh checkout, then copying
> the 1.7 .svn directory over to the old workspace and then being able
> to commit the outstanding changes. Is that a reasonable thing to try?
Should omit the .svn dirs doing that, and probably should check out
the new WC to the revision that the old one is on, so that no commit
is accidentally reverted. -> Should review the diffs before committing.
And should urge to make a backup before trying to update (although
one seemingly can run into problems lateron), so one can fall back
to 1.6.x.
> How can you tell if a workspace is corrupt?
Apparently by checking the stores hashes against the pristine copies?
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> >
> >> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose
> >> me to checkout??? You are crazy?
> >
> > Sorry, 'svn upgrade' cannot cope with corrupted 1.6 working copies.
> > That is simply the way it is.
>
> Someone in another thread mentioned doing fresh checkout, then copying
> the 1.7 .svn directory over to the old workspace and then being able
> to commit the outstanding changes. Is that a reasonable thing to try?
Not sure. Depends on why the 1.6 working copy was corrupt in the
first place, I guess.
If in doubt, get a fresh checkout.
> > If more people had tested the 1.7 pre-releases, your problem might
> > have been caught before the 1.7.0 release. But it was not found.
>
> I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
> corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
> people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
There are not as many corrupt working copies as it may appear from
the current flood of reports on this list.
>From the #svn-dev IRC channel:
<stsp> i wonder how many people do *not* have a problem with upgrade
<stsp> how many people are trying 1.7 and don't report back because it just works?
<Bert> stsp: I see thousands of users that upgrade AnkhSVN every workday
and only a tiny few of those (< 10 until now) reported upgrade errors.
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
>
>> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose
>> me to checkout??? You are crazy?
>
> Sorry, 'svn upgrade' cannot cope with corrupted 1.6 working copies.
> That is simply the way it is.
Someone in another thread mentioned doing fresh checkout, then copying
the 1.7 .svn directory over to the old workspace and then being able
to commit the outstanding changes. Is that a reasonable thing to try?
> If more people had tested the 1.7 pre-releases, your problem might
> have been caught before the 1.7.0 release. But it was not found.
I think there is a bigger question regarding why there are so many
corrupt 1.6 workspaces around that nothing so far had noticed. Should
people be concerned about that even if they aren't upgrading yet?
How can you tell if a workspace is corrupt?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:20:22PM +0300, Igor d wrote:
> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose
> me to checkout??? You are crazy?
Sorry, 'svn upgrade' cannot cope with corrupted 1.6 working copies.
That is simply the way it is.
There will be some fixes coming up in 1.7.1, but upgrading a corrupt
1.6 working copy can always result in problems.
You could have checked in your changes before the upgrade to be
on the safe side.
If more people had tested the 1.7 pre-releases, your problem might
have been caught before the 1.7.0 release. But it was not found.
Developers cannot fix problems they don't know about. So why do you
call us crazy? If we could fix problems we don't know about, *then*
we'd be crazy :)
Next time, you could help by testing our pre-releases (which have been
available for a long time) to see if our next release has problems in
your setup, and let us know about any problems so we can ship a better
release. Thanks!
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de>.
Guten Tag Igor d,
am Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2011 um 16:20 schrieben Sie:
> But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose
> me to checkout??? You are crazy?
No backup, no commit before changing your working copy format?
Sounds...
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme - Hameln | Potsdam | Leipzig
Telefon: Potsdam: 0331-743881-0
E-Mail: tschoening@am-soft.de
Web: http://www.am-soft.de
AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Konsumhof 1-5, 14482 Potsdam
Amtsgericht Potsdam HRB 21278 P, Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Igor d <ig...@gmail.com>.
But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose
me to checkout??? You are crazy?
Re: Help! Subversion Exception!
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 02:19:03PM +0300, Igor d wrote:
> This excepted when i tried to upgrade dir to 1.7 version of svn
>
> ---------------------------
> Subversion Exception!
> ---------------------------
> Subversion encountered a serious problem.
> Please take the time to report this on the Subversion mailing list
> (users@subversion.apache.org)
> with as much information as possible about what
> you were trying to do.
> But please first search the mailing list archives for the error message
> to avoid reporting the same problem repeatedly.
> You can find the mailing list archives at
> http://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
>
> Subversion reported the following
> (you can copy the content of this dialog
> to the clipboard using Ctrl-C):
>
> 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))
> ---------------------------
> ОК
> ---------------------------
>
>
> help me.
You need to get a new checkout because your 1.6 working copy is broken.
It cannot be upgraded, sorry.