iteration/81/trunk
HTTP/1.1" 409 281
9.31.13.109 - username [31/Jan/2012:11:37:24 -0800] "DELETE
/repository/!svn/txn/61847-1bz5 HTTP/1.1" 404 232
Any help/comments would be appreciated. Thank you.
Jason Wong
Hello and thank you for replying.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 13:23:10 -0800:
>> Any help/comments would be appreciated. Thank you.
>>
>
> As I said, I'd be interested in isolating the cause of these e
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 01:46:45 +0200:
>>> Jason Wong wrote on Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 15:32:05 -0800:
>
>>> Get xxd.exe from http:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:23 -0800:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> >> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> The output from these two tells me two things:
>
> 1. The minfo-cnt value is reasonable (within a typical ballpark).
> That's relevant since minfo-cnt abnormalities were seen in another
> instance of the bug.
>
> 2. Everything else looks
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:36:39AM -0800, Jason Wong wrote:
>> This is true. We have seen the bug happen before. The first occurence
>> of this that we had seen was Dec. 7th, 2011, a few days after we went
>> from 1.6.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:36:39 -0800:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The output from these two tells me two things:
>> >
>> > 1.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:01:26 -0800:
>> I have had a developer here create a build of the latest SVN code
>> with your changes you mentioned in r1294470 for the svnadmin verify
>
> Okay, that's g
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 07:32:38 -0800:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > Jason Wong wrote on Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:01:26 -0800:
>> >> I have had a developer here cr
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:57:59 -0700:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > Jason Wong wrote on Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 07:32:38 -0800:
>> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at
Hello Daniel, Philip.
I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re:
predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message".
It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job.
Do you need any more information from me at this point? Thanks.
Jason Wong.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700:
>> Hello Daniel, Philip.
>>
>> I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re:
>> predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong me
derev.pl on / of both copies at the same revisions, and
> comparing the minfo-cnt values.
>
> I would be interested in knowing whether they are equal between the two
> copies.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
> Jason Wong wrote on Thu, Feb 16, 20
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Jason Wong wrote:
> Hello Daniel.
>
> I will give it a go and let you know what I find.
>
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Jason,
>>
>> I've learnt yesterday something new about the
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Jason Wong wrote on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:49:20 -0700:
>> dump-noderev.pl /repo /
>> -
>> id: 0.0.r62104/28771
>> type: dir
>> pred: 0.0.r62103/28680
>> coun
15 matches
Mail list logo
