Hello,
I sometimes get the following error message when running "cvs up":
cvs update: checksum failure after patch to some_dir/some_file.c; will
refetch
Is this serious? It seems that, after the update, the file in particular
is correct...
What is the reason for this message?
Aad Rijnberg
___
ajrijnberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I sometimes get the following error message when running "cvs up":
> cvs update: checksum failure after patch to some_dir/some_file.c; will
> refetch
>
> Is this serious? It seems that, after the update, the file in
> particular
> is correct...
> What
ajrijnberg writes:
>
> I sometimes get the following error message when running "cvs up":
> cvs update: checksum failure after patch to some_dir/some_file.c; will
> refetch
>
> Is this serious? It seems that, after the update, the file in particular
> is correct...
> What is the reason for this m
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:35:00PM -0500, Jim.Hyslop wrote:
> ajrijnberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > cvs update: checksum failure after patch to some_dir/some_file.c; will
> > refetch
>
> The
> two checksums did not match, so CVS scrapped the patched file and just
> retrieved the whole thi
Eric Siegerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Personally, I'd be in favour of CVS hiding the distinction
> between "patch" and "update". They both lead to the same end
> state, and which method CVS chooses is an implementation detail
> that's irrelevent to end users.
>
> The "P" status and th
Eric Siegerman writes:
>
> The "P" status and the "checksum failure" message should both go
> away. (Patched and fully-refetched files should all be labelled
> "U".)
I might be convinced about "P" status (although, personally, I like it),
but I strongly disagree about the checksum failure messag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Eric Siegerman writes:
> >
> > The "P" status and the "checksum failure" message should both go
> > away. (Patched and fully-refetched files should all be labelled
> > "U".)
>
> I might be convinced about "P" status (although, personally,
> I
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 03:22:31PM -0500, Larry Jones wrote:
Larry> Eric Siegerman writes:
Larry> >
Larry> > The "P" status and the "checksum failure" message should both go
Larry> > away. (Patched and fully-refetched files should all be labelled
Larry> > "U".)
Larry>
Larry> I might be convinced
Eric Siegerman writes:
>
> Hmm, what would it take to convince you? :-)
A whole bunch of people to agree (vociferously) with you.
> I strongly agree with Jim. Some more thoughts on how it could be
> improved:
> - Saving the user's file as .# backup is the least it should
> do. Better wou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[on eliminating 'P' status code]
> Eric Siegerman writes:
> > Hmm, what would it take to convince you? :-)
>
> A whole bunch of people to agree (vociferously) with you.
I hope there was a missing smiley, Larry. The problem is that most people
who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim.Hyslop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [on eliminating 'P' status code]
> > Eric Siegerman writes:
> > > Hmm, what would it take to convince you? :-)
> >
> > A whole bunch of people to agree (voc
Jim.Hyslop writes:
>
> I hope there was a missing smiley, Larry. The problem is that most people
> who get confused by this issue probably don't subscribe to this list. Heck,
> most of them probably aren't even aware this list exists. So I don't think
> you'll hear all the grumbling and confusion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Jones) writes:
>I strongly disagree about the checksum failure message. It indicates
>a serious confusion about the state of the working file that the user
>*must* investigate. It indicates that there were local changes to
>the file that CVS doesn't know about and is in
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:45:00PM -0800, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> In theory, the server had a copy of the client file to do the patch in
> the first place and the client copy either became stale or was corrupted
> while the server copy was being used to generate a patch.
Or the client file change
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 21:14, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> Or the client file changed but its timestamp did not.
Hi,
Thank you all for your explanation so far.
I was the one who started this discussion. I am just a normal CVS-user
(also playing CVS-administrator for our project team), so I have maybe
Aad Rijnberg writes:
>
> One of my colleagues wrote a script to remove
> tabs, CR/LF, and beautify the code with indent. In doing so he chose to
> leave the date/time stamp of the file equal to that of before the
> beautifying action.
[...]
> Am I right that this is probably the cause of the probl
[ On Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 01:34:19 (-0500), Larry Jones wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?
>
> Jim.Hyslop writes:
> >
> > Well, even in local mode the client must have some knowledge of how to do a
> > merge, otherwise it could
17 matches
Mail list logo
