Elaine Ashton wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Mark J. Nelson wrote: > >> Rich and I have been discussing this. >> >> Looks like Mercurial issue 612: >> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/bts/issue612 >> >> ...which was fixed in Hg 0.9.5. >> >> We're not sure why it's only now showing up. When was the last >> Mercurial upgrade on the app servers, and from what version to what >> version? > > We rotated in a new app server which serves the scm console last week.... > > old one: > > Mercurial Distributed SCM (version 0.9.3) > > Copyright (C) 2005, 2006 Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > New one: > > Mercurial Distributed SCM (version 1.0.2) > > Copyright (C) 2005-2008 Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> and others > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > Locally applied patches: > patchlist: enable a list of patches in 'hg version' output > > So that would explain the why in why it is showing up only now.
Thanks, that makes sense. >> When did Eric switch versions? From what to what? > > Eric got caught in the RIF in Jan. Different Eric. Eric Saxe. Sorry, I was assuming he was involved, as the merge changeset that tripped over this problem was his. I meant "whoever tried to clone this project repository." >> As far as remediation, it's not clear to me that this can be fixed >> easily. It would probably help to actually know what repository this >> is, or to have a tarball of the .hg directory. > > I can send you a zfs snapshot or a tarball if you need it. I can also > roll it back up to 30 days if that would be useful. If the zfs snapshot is just the repo in question, that's fine, otherwise a tarball would be great. The 30-day rollback would be insufficient, as the problem was actually introduced when merging the project gate to onnv_82. --Mark