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 themsel
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:27:38 +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Andreas Krey wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 20:38:58 +0200:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:26:06 +, 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 da
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 14:31:21 -0500:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dave Huang 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.
> >
>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dave Huang 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 y
Andreas Krey wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 20:38:58 +0200:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:26:06 +, 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, a
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
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
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:03:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Sperling 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
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Sperling 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'
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:53:19PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Stefan Sperling 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 suc
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Stefan Sperling 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
lesmikes...@gmail.com
Les Mikesell 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,
foun
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:26:06 +, 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
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
> > wrote:
> > > I don't understand the question. As a rule, when upgrade fails the
> > > working copy remains usable
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:30:34PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Stefan Sperling 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
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Stefan Sperling 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.
>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:01:32PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> 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 yo
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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 stil
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:47:25 -0500:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> 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
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:47:25PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> 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
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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
t
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:20:16 -0500:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> 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 checko
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Shahaf 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 pendin
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
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:43:58 +, 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 h
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:igoro...@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
>
> 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
> 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.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 17:53, Philip Martin wrote:
>> sebb 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, st
On 18 October 2011 17:53, Philip Martin wrote:
> sebb 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 unch
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 t
sebb 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
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18:24AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling 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 c
On 18 October 2011 17:10, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> sebb wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:57:14 +0100:
>> On 18 October 2011 16:33, Daniel Shahaf 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
>> >> corr
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:33:35 +, 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.
sebb wrote on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 16:57:14 +0100:
> On 18 October 2011 16:33, Daniel Shahaf 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 noti
On 18 October 2011 16:33, Daniel Shahaf 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
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 worksp
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:18:24 +, 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
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 Sc
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Sperling 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
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 comin
But if i have a lot of different local modifications in sources, you propose
me to checkout??? You are crazy?
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 S
44 matches
Mail list logo
