[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-2122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14920937#comment-14920937
]
Ivan Zhakov edited comment on SVN-2122 at 10/17/15 1:02 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, with reservations, in r11876.
There is still an underlying problem here. Take the working copy created in the
above recipe, which consists of:
{noformat}
./ @r213, non-recursive
./README @r213
./www/ @r213, non-recursive
./scripts/ @r213, non-recursive
{noformat}
Meanwhile, the repository is at r246 or so, and has many trees not represented
in the working copy, such as the people/ tree and the tags/ tree, with plenty
of subtrees underneath them. Some of that data existed in r213, and was not
checked out only because we passed -N. But other data was created after r213.
Now we run {{svn st -u}} in the working copy, using a Subversion that has the
r11876 fixes:
{noformat}
$ svn st -u
* 213 www/IGNORE-ME
* 213 www
* people/dato/packages/.../some_file
* people/dato/packages/.../another_file
* people/dato/packages/.../etc
* people/dato/packages/.../etc
* 213 scripts/svn-hooks/post-commit
* 213 scripts/IGNORE-ME
* 213 scripts/update-www
* 213 scripts
* tags/packages/some_tag/etc...
* tags/packages/some_tag/etc...
* tags/packages/other_tag/etc...
* tags/packages/other_tag/etc...
Status against revision: 246
$
{noformat}
You can't tell from looking, but paths reported in scripts/ and www/ are
'D'eletions or 'M'odifications (confirmed this while debugging). All the other
statuses, for paths not present locally, are 'A'dded. This is expected, given
the r11876 changes.
The question is, what *should* we report? Mike Pilato and I tentatively agree
that we shouldn't report status on paths that aren't officially in the working
copy at all. By "officially", we mean paths that are omitted because this was
a -N checkout, not paths that are missing because they were 'svn rm'd or just
plain 'rm'd.
However, the client->server reporter language has no way to express "Please
ignore all changes under PATH" at the moment. Not only that, the .svn/entries
file in the top of the working copy doesn't really "know" that it's missing
anything. It's not marked as incomplete, nor does it have dummy entries for
"people/" and "tags/".
So first we need working copy awareness of non-recursivity. Then we need the
working copy to express that to the server, and the server to DTRT with the
information.
This is part of issue SVN-695, so marking this as a dependency.
was (Author: kfogel):
{noformat:nopanel=true}
Resolved, with reservations, in r11876.
There is still an underlying problem here. Take the working copy created in the
above recipe, which consists of:
./ @r213, non-recursive
./README @r213
./www/ @r213, non-recursive
./scripts/ @r213, non-recursive
Meanwhile, the repository is at r246 or so, and has many trees not represented
in the working copy, such as the people/ tree and the tags/ tree, with plenty of
subtrees underneath them. Some of that data existed in r213, and was not
checked out only because we passed -N. But other data was created after r213.
Now we run 'svn st -u' in the working copy, using a Subversion that has the
r11876 fixes:
$ svn st -u
* 213 www/IGNORE-ME
* 213 www
* people/dato/packages/.../some_file
* people/dato/packages/.../another_file
* people/dato/packages/.../etc
* people/dato/packages/.../etc
* 213 scripts/svn-hooks/post-commit
* 213 scripts/IGNORE-ME
* 213 scripts/update-www
* 213 scripts
* tags/packages/some_tag/etc...
* tags/packages/some_tag/etc...
* tags/packages/other_tag/etc...
* tags/packages/other_tag/etc...
Status against revision: 246
$
You can't tell from looking, but paths reported in scripts/ and www/ are
'D'eletions or 'M'odifications (confirmed this while debugging). All the other
statuses, for paths not present locally, are 'A'dded. This is expected, given
the r11876 changes.
The question is, what *should* we report? Mike Pilato and I tentatively agree
that we shouldn't report status on paths that aren't officially in the working
copy at all. By "officially", we mean paths that are omitted because this was a
-N checkout, not paths that are missing because they were 'svn rm'd or just
plain 'rm'd.
However, the client->server reporter language has no way to express "Please
ignore all changes under PATH" at the moment. Not only that, the .svn/entries
file in the top of the working copy doesn't really "know" that it's missing
anything. It's not marked as incomplete, nor does it have dummy entries for
"people/" and "tags/".
So first we need working copy awareness of non-recursivity. Then we need the
working copy to express that to the server, and the server to DTRT with the
information.
This is part of issue #695, so marking this as a dependency.
{noformat}
> 'svn status -u' can crash with partial -N working copy
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SVN-2122
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-2122
> Project: Subversion
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: libsvn_wc
> Affects Versions: all
> Reporter: Karl Fogel
> Assignee: Ben Reser
> Fix For: unscheduled
>
>
> {noformat:nopanel=true}
> Adeodato Simó <[email protected]> posted this report to dev@ today. The message
> hasn't shown up in the archives yet, but it's this one:
> From: Adeodato Simó <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: crash when doing svn st -u (assertion failed)
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:32:25 +0100
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> The recipe is simple, and reproduces for me with svn 1.2 (dev build):
> $ svn co -N -r 213 svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-kde .
> A README
> Checked out revision 213.
>
> $ svn up -r 213 scripts www
> [ List of scripts/* files.]
> Updated to revision 213.
> [ List of www/* files.]
> Updated to revision 213.
>
> $ svn st -u
> * 213 www/IGNORE-ME
> * 213 www
> svn: subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c:910: tweak_statushash: \
> Assertion `repos_text_status == svn_wc_status_added' failed. \
> Aborted (core dumped)
> At first, I thought this might be related to SteveKing's status crash bug
> report, at
> Original post:
> From: SteveKing <[email protected]>
> Subject: crash when fetching status
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:44:38 +0100
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=82253
> Whole thread:
> http://tinyurl.com/4tzqd
> However, looking more closely now, I'm less optimistic that it's the same
> bug.
> The assertion that's failing in this new report is one added in r6913, yet
> it's
> apparently not being triggered in SteveKing's situation. Investigating now.
> {noformat}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
