Re: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-27 Thread Marc Strapetz
On 27.11.2013 11:32, Bert Huijben wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Marc Strapetz [mailto:marc.strap...@syntevo.com] >> Sent: woensdag 27 november 2013 09:30 >> To: Philip Martin >> Cc: Branko Čibej; users@subversion.apache.org >>

RE: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-27 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Marc Strapetz [mailto:marc.strap...@syntevo.com] > Sent: woensdag 27 november 2013 09:30 > To: Philip Martin > Cc: Branko Čibej; users@subversion.apache.org > Subject: Re: wc.db: corruption after move? > > On 26.11.2013 21:38, Phili

Re: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-27 Thread Marc Strapetz
On 26.11.2013 21:38, Philip Martin wrote: > Marc Strapetz writes: > > As far as I have been told, this has already been fixed and backported > to 1.8.5. Still, for those users which already have this corruption, is > there a way to recover their working copies with standard Subversion

Re: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-26 Thread Philip Martin
Marc Strapetz writes: As far as I have been told, this has already been fixed and backported to 1.8.5. Still, for those users which already have this corruption, is there a way to recover their working copies with standard Subversion functionality? Could a Revert work? And if

Re: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-26 Thread Marc Strapetz
On 26.11.2013 18:27, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 26.11.2013 18:08, Philip Martin wrote: >> Marc Strapetz writes: >> >>> We are encountering working copies with >>> >>> nodes.presence = moved and nodes.moved_to = >> What does "nodes.presence = moved" mean? There has never been a moved >> presence.

Re: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-26 Thread Branko Čibej
On 26.11.2013 18:27, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 26.11.2013 18:08, Philip Martin wrote: >> Marc Strapetz writes: >> >>> We are encountering working copies with >>> >>> nodes.presence = moved and nodes.moved_to = >> What does "nodes.presence = moved" mean? There has never been a moved >> presence. >

Re: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-26 Thread Branko Čibej
On 26.11.2013 18:08, Philip Martin wrote: > Marc Strapetz writes: > >> We are encountering working copies with >> >> nodes.presence = moved and nodes.moved_to = > What does "nodes.presence = moved" mean? There has never been a moved > presence. > > Do you mean rows with nodes.moved_here=1 no cor

Re: wc.db: corruption after move?

2013-11-26 Thread Philip Martin
Marc Strapetz writes: > We are encountering working copies with > > nodes.presence = moved and nodes.moved_to = What does "nodes.presence = moved" mean? There has never been a moved presence. Do you mean rows with nodes.moved_here=1 no corresponding rows with non-null nodes.moved_to? Or some