Probably the fact that 1.11.2 added some new checks for data consistency. It was the upgrade from 1.10.X to 1.11 in our system that caused me to write the script. The 1.11 would fail and the 1.10.X would work fine.
donald On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Mike Quinn wrote: > OK, more update - apparently our CVS database has been corrupted for a while. > > The script that was sent to me verifies that. So 1.11.2 adding a branch > seems to put it over the edge, whereas 1.11 doesn't (why, I don't know). > > So it's possible there's nothing wrong with 1.11.2. > > I'll do some more experiments and report back later on. > -Mike > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 9/19/2002 at 11:36 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Mike Quinn writes: > >> > >> I ran my own script and checked out 100 different branches and it worked > >fine before > >> adding the branch, and breaks big-time afterwards. > > > >It certainly sounds like your CVS 1.11.2 is broken -- did you build it > >yourself or did you get an executable from somewhere? Obviously, such a > >serious error would have been reported long ago if it affected CVS in > >general. Are you sure you can cause the corruption with a local > >repository? Most corruption is caused by NFS bugs. Have you run the > >sanity checks (make check) to validate your CVS executable? > > > >-Larry Jones > > > >I stand FIRM in my belief of what's right! I REFUSE to > >compromise my principles! -- Calvin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-cvs mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
