Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-13 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T16:06:20 -0800
jungle Boogie  wrote:
> 
> Great news!
> 
> Did you happen to change your git version at all during either test?

Nope, same version all along (2.6.2).

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-13 Thread Martin Gagnon 
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 02:12:01PM +0100, Piotr Orzechowski wrote:
> I've just looked at release notes for 1.34 and 1.33 and there was no
> straightforward note about need to rebuild repositories. Maybe it would
> be better to add such information to requiring release notes, or maybe
> even fossil would be able to suggest repo rebuilding itself?
> 

After bisecting, I found that this commit:
  http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/8e44cf6f4df4f9f0

Fix the problem. 

Since this fix is about mlink table and not on the export command
directly, updating fossil is not enought to solve the problem, but it
require a rebuild.

Probably a note could be added to the 1.34 release notes.

regards,

-- 
Martin G.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-13 Thread Piotr Orzechowski 
I've just looked at release notes for 1.34 and 1.33 and there was no
straightforward note about need to rebuild repositories. Maybe it would
be better to add such information to requiring release notes, or maybe
even fossil would be able to suggest repo rebuilding itself?

Pozdrawiam / With best regards,
Orzech

W dniu 13.12.2015 o 12:23, org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com pisze:
> On 2015-12-12T16:06:20 -0800
> jungle Boogie  wrote:
>> Great news!
>>
>> Did you happen to change your git version at all during either test?
> Nope, same version all along (2.6.2).
>
> M
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-13 Thread jungle Boogie 
On 13 December 2015 at 05:12, Piotr Orzechowski  wrote:
> I've just looked at release notes for 1.34 and 1.33 and there was no
> straightforward note about need to rebuild repositories.


Admittedly I don't do it every time, but I thought that was something
to be done for every update?


Here's openBSD's port advising it's a good idea to run rebuild:
http://openports.se/devel/fossil

After upgrading to a newer version of fossil, it is always a good idea
to run: "fossil all rebuild". Running "rebuild" this way is not always
necessary, but it never hurts.



-- 
---
inum: 883510009027723
sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info
xmpp: jungle-boo...@jit.si
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-13 Thread Piotr Orzechowski 
I guess it would be better to change help message about rebuild then.
As of now, it says "Run this command after updating the fossil
executable in a way that changes the database schema." So I would
expect to see some information about such need in release notes.
Perhaps it would be better to add to help that it is a good practice
to run this command after each update. But then, why wouldn't rebuild
happen automatically?

Pozdrawiam / With best regards,
Orzech

W dniu 13.12.2015 o 18:00, jungle Boogie pisze:
> On 13 December 2015 at 05:12, Piotr Orzechowski  wrote:
>> I've just looked at release notes for 1.34 and 1.33 and there was no
>> straightforward note about need to rebuild repositories.
>
> Admittedly I don't do it every time, but I thought that was something
> to be done for every update?
>
>
> Here's openBSD's port advising it's a good idea to run rebuild:
> http://openports.se/devel/fossil
>
> After upgrading to a newer version of fossil, it is always a good idea
> to run: "fossil all rebuild". Running "rebuild" this way is not always
> necessary, but it never hurts.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-13 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger 
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 09:57:44PM +0100, Piotr Orzechowski wrote:
> I guess it would be better to change help message about rebuild then.
> As of now, it says "Run this command after updating the fossil
> executable in a way that changes the database schema." So I would
> expect to see some information about such need in release notes.
> Perhaps it would be better to add to help that it is a good practice
> to run this command after each update. But then, why wouldn't rebuild
> happen automatically?

I wouldn't advise to run it after every update, especially for large
repos. On something like NetBSD's src.fossil, it can take hours even on
a fast machine.

Joerg
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-13 Thread Piotr Orzechowski 
Thanks for clarifying that. So I guess it would be either release note
advise or schema change notification when running maybe even
any command, if it was up to me. ;)

Pozdrawiam / With best regards,
Orzech

W dniu 13.12.2015 o 22:58, Joerg Sonnenberger pisze:
> I wouldn't advise to run it after every update, especially for large
> repos. On something like NetBSD's src.fossil, it can take hours even on
> a fast machine.
>
> Joerg
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

[fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
Hello!

I'm attempting to export a moderately large (241mb) repository to git:

  http://fossil.io7m.com/repo.cgi/io7m-r1/index

The export proceeds without an error:

  /tmp/r1-fossil$ fossil export > /tmp/r1.bin

The import proceeds without an error:

  /tmp/r1-git$ git init
  /tmp/r1-git$ git fast-import < /tmp/r1.bin

However, the resulting git checkout is missing files that are present
in the most recent commit to the fossil repository.

  /tmp/r1-fossil$ ls -alF 
io7m-r1-documentation/src/main/resources/com/io7m/r1/documentation/ | wc -l
  43

  /tmp/r1-git$ ls -alF 
io7m-r1-documentation/src/main/resources/com/io7m/r1/documentation/ | wc -l
  30

In some cases, entire directory hierarchies are missing:

  /tmp/r1-fossil$ ls -alF 
io7m-r1-examples/src/main/resources/com/io7m/r1/examples/results/scenes/ | wc -l
  80

  /tmp/r1-git$ ls -alF 
io7m-r1-examples/src/main/resources/com/io7m/r1/examples/results/scenes/ | wc -l
  ls: cannot access 
io7m-r1-examples/src/main/resources/com/io7m/r1/examples/results/scenes/: No 
such file or directory
  0

Is there some way to get more information about what's going wrong here? I don't
know if fossil or git is at fault, and I have no way of knowing how badly the
history has been corrupted by the export or import.

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T12:26:19 +
 wrote:
>
> Is there some way to get more information about what's going wrong here? I 
> don't
> know if fossil or git is at fault, and I have no way of knowing how badly the
> history has been corrupted by the export or import.

It seems that somebody else ran into this at the start of the year:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg19238.html

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread Richard Hipp 
On 12/12/15, org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com
 wrote:
> On 2015-12-12T12:26:19 +
>  wrote:
>>
>> Is there some way to get more information about what's going wrong here? I
>> don't
>> know if fossil or git is at fault, and I have no way of knowing how badly
>> the
>> history has been corrupted by the export or import.
>
> It seems that somebody else ran into this at the start of the year:
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg19238.html
>

Yeah, that's a bummer.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that the Git fast-export
format is only sparsely documented, and in some cases incorrectly
documented.  And Git is very fussy about the format.  So it is
possible to generate a fast-export file that conforms exactly to the
documentation but which Git will not accept.  And since Git is the
dominant VCS at the moment, the Git people are under no pressure to
fix this sad state of affairs.

The import/export functionality of Fossil has been greatly improved in
the past by the work of volunteers tracking down obscure
incompatibilities.  If you would like to try to get to the bottom of
the problems you are seeing, and either identify the root cause, or
better to suggest patches, that would be greatly appreciated.

-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T14:21:19 +
 wrote:
> 
> Ideally, I'd be able to reproduce this with a somewhat smaller
> repository...

Surprisingly, this turned out to be easier than expected!

http://waste.io7m.com/2015/12/12/fossilexport/

1. Create fossil repository.
2. Add README.txt and commit in trunk.
3. Create branch 'b0' and switch to it.
4. Add README-b0.txt and commit in b0.
5. Switch to trunk.
6. Merge and commit 'b0'.

The test.fossil repository is the repository resulting from the above:

$ fossil timeline -R test.fossil 
=== 2015-12-12 ===
14:26:36 [6ee55fff27] *MERGE* Merge b0 (user: someone tags: trunk)
14:26:14 [5c6acf101e] Add README-b0 (user: someone tags: b0)
14:25:38 [76a31a2f66] Create new branch named "b0" (user: someone tags: b0) 
14:25:17 [79f2f13cf7] *BRANCH* Initial (user: someone tags: trunk)
14:24:46 [fa9a67d8e8] initial empty check-in (user: someone tags: trunk)
+++ no more data (5) +++

Exporting the repository results in this:

---
blob
mark :4
data 7
Hello.

blob
mark :10
data 10
Hello b0.

commit refs/heads/trunk
mark :3
committer someone  1449930286 +
data 22
initial empty check-in
deleteall

commit refs/heads/trunk
mark :7
committer someone  1449930317 +
data 7
Initial
from :3
M 100644 :4 README.txt

commit refs/heads/b0
mark :9
committer someone  1449930338 +
data 28
Create new branch named "b0"
from :7

commit refs/heads/b0
mark :13
committer someone  1449930374 +
data 13
Add README-b0
from :9
M 100644 :10 README-b0.txt

commit refs/heads/trunk
mark :15
committer someone  1449930396 +
data 8
Merge b0
from :7
merge :13
---

Importing that results in no README-b0.txt existing in the 'trunk'
branch of the created git repository.

I don't understand what's going wrong yet, but at least we now have
a repro case.

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T08:42:48 -0500
Richard Hipp  wrote:
> 
> The import/export functionality of Fossil has been greatly improved in
> the past by the work of volunteers tracking down obscure
> incompatibilities.  If you would like to try to get to the bottom of
> the problems you are seeing, and either identify the root cause, or
> better to suggest patches, that would be greatly appreciated.

Not knowing the fast-import format, I suspect I'm going to be
approaching the git people and asking them why git doesn't seem to
import the produced file properly. I've checked the exported data and
all of the files and commits are present, but it does seem like
something isn't carried across merges.

Ideally, I'd be able to reproduce this with a somewhat smaller
repository...

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread Richard Hipp 
Tnx for the repro case!  I'm away from office most of today.  Will
look when I'm able.

On 12/12/15, org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com
 wrote:
> On 2015-12-12T14:21:19 +
>  wrote:
>>
>> Ideally, I'd be able to reproduce this with a somewhat smaller
>> repository...
>
> Surprisingly, this turned out to be easier than expected!
>
> http://waste.io7m.com/2015/12/12/fossilexport/
>
> 1. Create fossil repository.
> 2. Add README.txt and commit in trunk.
> 3. Create branch 'b0' and switch to it.
> 4. Add README-b0.txt and commit in b0.
> 5. Switch to trunk.
> 6. Merge and commit 'b0'.
>
> The test.fossil repository is the repository resulting from the above:
>
> $ fossil timeline -R test.fossil
> === 2015-12-12 ===
> 14:26:36 [6ee55fff27] *MERGE* Merge b0 (user: someone tags: trunk)
> 14:26:14 [5c6acf101e] Add README-b0 (user: someone tags: b0)
> 14:25:38 [76a31a2f66] Create new branch named "b0" (user: someone tags: b0)
>
> 14:25:17 [79f2f13cf7] *BRANCH* Initial (user: someone tags: trunk)
> 14:24:46 [fa9a67d8e8] initial empty check-in (user: someone tags: trunk)
> +++ no more data (5) +++
>
> Exporting the repository results in this:
>
> ---
> blob
> mark :4
> data 7
> Hello.
>
> blob
> mark :10
> data 10
> Hello b0.
>
> commit refs/heads/trunk
> mark :3
> committer someone  1449930286 +
> data 22
> initial empty check-in
> deleteall
>
> commit refs/heads/trunk
> mark :7
> committer someone  1449930317 +
> data 7
> Initial
> from :3
> M 100644 :4 README.txt
>
> commit refs/heads/b0
> mark :9
> committer someone  1449930338 +
> data 28
> Create new branch named "b0"
> from :7
>
> commit refs/heads/b0
> mark :13
> committer someone  1449930374 +
> data 13
> Add README-b0
> from :9
> M 100644 :10 README-b0.txt
>
> commit refs/heads/trunk
> mark :15
> committer someone  1449930396 +
> data 8
> Merge b0
> from :7
> merge :13
> ---
>
> Importing that results in no README-b0.txt existing in the 'trunk'
> branch of the created git repository.
>
> I don't understand what's going wrong yet, but at least we now have
> a repro case.
>
> M
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>


-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread Konstantin Khomoutov 
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:42:48 -0500
Richard Hipp  wrote:

> > It seems that somebody else ran into this at the start of the year:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg19238.html
> Yeah, that's a bummer.
> 
> Part of the problem stems from the fact that the Git fast-export
> format is only sparsely documented, and in some cases incorrectly
> documented.  And Git is very fussy about the format.  So it is
> possible to generate a fast-export file that conforms exactly to the
> documentation but which Git will not accept.  And since Git is the
> dominant VCS at the moment, the Git people are under no pressure to
> fix this sad state of affairs.

Did you report a bug?

It's just a matter of posting a mail to git at vger.kernel.org;
subscription is not required.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread jungle Boogie 
On 12 December 2015 at 14:48,   wrote:
> Ah!
>
> I've just discovered that if I use the trunk version of fossil and run
> it on a freshly created repository, then it does export correctly. If I
> use the trunk version of fossil on the repository created by the older
> version, it fails. If I 'fossil rebuild' the old repository, exporting
> works correctly!


Great news!

Did you happen to change your git version at all during either test?



-- 
---
inum: 883510009027723
sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info
xmpp: jungle-boo...@jit.si
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T23:24:08 +0300
Konstantin Khomoutov  wrote:
> 
> Did you report a bug?
> 
> It's just a matter of posting a mail to git at vger.kernel.org;
> subscription is not required.

I sent the git list the same info and test case a couple of hours ago,
but haven't had a response yet.

I still don't know if this is a Fossil or a Git issue, so I thought I'd
let the git people look at the fast-import file to see if they can spot
any obvious mistakes in it.

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T16:07:23 -0500
Martin Gagnon  wrote:
> 
> What version of git and fossil are you using ?
> 
> I cannot reproduce the problem using your repo case. After the merge,
> the README-b0.txt file is present.
> 
> Here a script that reproduce your repo case, does it correspond to your
> test case ?

Hello!

$ fossil version
This is fossil version 1.32 [715f88811a] 2015-05-02 21:11:26 UTC

$ git version
git version 2.6.2

The script you've attached is exactly what I used to create the test
case. Which versions are you using?

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread Martin Gagnon 
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 02:47:59PM +, org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com 
wrote:
> On 2015-12-12T14:21:19 +
>  wrote:
> > 
> > Ideally, I'd be able to reproduce this with a somewhat smaller
> > repository...
> 
> Surprisingly, this turned out to be easier than expected!
> 
> http://waste.io7m.com/2015/12/12/fossilexport/
> 
> 1. Create fossil repository.
> 2. Add README.txt and commit in trunk.
> 3. Create branch 'b0' and switch to it.
> 4. Add README-b0.txt and commit in b0.
> 5. Switch to trunk.
> 6. Merge and commit 'b0'.
> 
  [snip]
> 
> Importing that results in no README-b0.txt existing in the 'trunk'
> branch of the created git repository.
> 
> I don't understand what's going wrong yet, but at least we now have
> a repro case.
> 

What version of git and fossil are you using ?

I cannot reproduce the problem using your repo case. After the merge,
the README-b0.txt file is present.

Here a script that reproduce your repo case, does it correspond to your
test case ?


regards,

-- 
Martin G.



ff.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread Martin Gagnon 
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 09:18:12PM +, org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com 
wrote:
> On 2015-12-12T16:07:23 -0500
> Martin Gagnon  wrote:
> > 
> > What version of git and fossil are you using ?
> > 
> > I cannot reproduce the problem using your repo case. After the merge,
> > the README-b0.txt file is present.
> > 
> > Here a script that reproduce your repo case, does it correspond to your
> > test case ?
> 
> Hello!
> 
> $ fossil version
> This is fossil version 1.32 [715f88811a] 2015-05-02 21:11:26 UTC
> 
> $ git version
> git version 2.6.2
> 
> The script you've attached is exactly what I used to create the test
> case. Which versions are you using?

This is fossil version 1.34 [a4889252f1] 2015-12-07 18:19:28 UTC

git version 1.9.1


-- 
Martin G.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T16:21:14 -0500
Martin Gagnon  wrote:
> > 
> > The script you've attached is exactly what I used to create the test
> > case. Which versions are you using?
> 
> This is fossil version 1.34 [a4889252f1] 2015-12-07 18:19:28 UTC
> 
> git version 1.9.1

Hrm, fossil is quite a bit newer and git is quite a bit older. I'll try
the current fossil trunk and see if that eliminates the issue. Is also
possible that fossil generates fast-import data that the older git can
work with but newer versions won't.

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T21:43:49 +
 wrote:

> On 2015-12-12T16:21:14 -0500
> Martin Gagnon  wrote:
> > > 
> > > The script you've attached is exactly what I used to create the test
> > > case. Which versions are you using?
> > 
> > This is fossil version 1.34 [a4889252f1] 2015-12-07 18:19:28 UTC
> > 
> > git version 1.9.1

Fossil trunk produces an identical fast-import file to the older
version. Could you verify that the fast-import file that your repo case
produces is the same as:

  http://waste.io7m.com/2015/12/12/fossilexport/test.export

It probably won't be byte-for-byte identical, but I'd assume that the
"mark" numbers would be the same, in addition to the order and number
of commits.

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread Martin Gagnon 
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:09:26PM +, org.fossil-scm.fossil-us...@io7m.com 
wrote:
> On 2015-12-12T21:43:49 +
>  wrote:
> 
> > On 2015-12-12T16:21:14 -0500
> > Martin Gagnon  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The script you've attached is exactly what I used to create the test
> > > > case. Which versions are you using?
> > > 
> > > This is fossil version 1.34 [a4889252f1] 2015-12-07 18:19:28 UTC
> > > 
> > > git version 1.9.1
> 
> Fossil trunk produces an identical fast-import file to the older
> version. Could you verify that the fast-import file that your repo case
> produces is the same as:
> 
>   http://waste.io7m.com/2015/12/12/fossilexport/test.export
> 
> It probably won't be byte-for-byte identical, but I'd assume that the
> "mark" numbers would be the same, in addition to the order and number
> of commits.


For some reason, mine have an extra line at the end that look like this:

M 100644 :10 README-b0.txt

For the rest, it's pretty similar.

Regards,

-- 
Martin G.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Is fossil export known to be broken?

2015-12-12 Thread org.fossil-scm.fossil-users 
On 2015-12-12T17:14:56 -0500
Martin Gagnon  wrote:
> 
> For some reason, mine have an extra line at the end that look like this:
> 
> M 100644 :10 README-b0.txt
> 
> For the rest, it's pretty similar.

Ah!

I've just discovered that if I use the trunk version of fossil and run
it on a freshly created repository, then it does export correctly. If I
use the trunk version of fossil on the repository created by the older
version, it fails. If I 'fossil rebuild' the old repository, exporting
works correctly!

I have no idea as to the cause, but it seems that fixing it requires
using a new version of Fossil AND rebuilding the repository before
exporting.

I have now correctly exported my original repository and all files
appear to be intact!

M
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users