Re: [galaxy-dev] changeset inconsistency
On Jan 23, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi Nate Yes, upgrading one of our old servers with hg pull -u -r 63bc46cc73b7 and downloading a new clone with hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist, does not result in the same changeset number (ie '6528') Thank you very much Hans Hi Hans, So with the latest dist version where the changeset number is still off, is it still showing 2 heads? Is the older head still 70b8039a2eef? What version of Mercurial is this? How about the output of 'hg branches', 'hg branches -a', and 'hg branches -c'? Thanks, --nate On 01/20/2012 09:04 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi Nate Thank you very much for your e-mail I am still testing and working on the last distribution, hopefully going live this Sunday. But I will look into downloading and upgrading (one of our dev servers) to the new distribution next week. Regards, Hans On 01/19/2012 07:39 PM, Nate Coraor wrote: Hi Hans, We're releasing a distribution today. If this is still the case with that distribution, let me know. There were branches that weren't showing up under newer versions of Mercurial. Hopefully this is all resolved in the latest. --nate On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi I am in the process of upgrading all our Galaxy servers to the current changeset (b258de1e6cea, Nov. 18) and I have noticed an inconsistency: If I upgrade one of our old servers (which was on 720455407d1c, June 23) with 'hg pull -u -r b258de1e6cea' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6297:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user: jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date: Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. haruhotz@silicon: If I create a new installation with 'hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6298:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user: jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date: Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. changeset: 5832:70b8039a2eef branch: feature/ws parent: 5826:6206a27bd2ae user: Nate Coraorn...@bx.psu.edu date: Wed Jul 27 10:48:03 2011 -0400 summary: Closed the feature/ws branch, changes from this branch were merged in 5827:f3a1086fac91. haruhotz@silicon: I am not worry about the merged branched, I am just a little bit surprised about the differences: 6298:b258de1e6cea versus 6297:b258de1e6cea Can anybody with more mercurial experience enlighten me what went wrong? and even better tell me that there is nothing to worry about... Regards, Hans ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
Re: [galaxy-dev] changeset inconsistency
Hi Nate Sorry, this was a typo, I meant to write: does noW result in the same changeset number (ie '6528') - so everything is fine now. I apologize for the confusion Hans On 02/01/2012 07:13 PM, Nate Coraor wrote: On Jan 23, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi Nate Yes, upgrading one of our old servers with hg pull -u -r 63bc46cc73b7 and downloading a new clone with hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist, does not result in the same changeset number (ie '6528') Thank you very much Hans Hi Hans, So with the latest dist version where the changeset number is still off, is it still showing 2 heads? Is the older head still 70b8039a2eef? What version of Mercurial is this? How about the output of 'hg branches', 'hg branches -a', and 'hg branches -c'? Thanks, --nate On 01/20/2012 09:04 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi Nate Thank you very much for your e-mail I am still testing and working on the last distribution, hopefully going live this Sunday. But I will look into downloading and upgrading (one of our dev servers) to the new distribution next week. Regards, Hans On 01/19/2012 07:39 PM, Nate Coraor wrote: Hi Hans, We're releasing a distribution today. If this is still the case with that distribution, let me know. There were branches that weren't showing up under newer versions of Mercurial. Hopefully this is all resolved in the latest. --nate On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi I am in the process of upgrading all our Galaxy servers to the current changeset (b258de1e6cea, Nov. 18) and I have noticed an inconsistency: If I upgrade one of our old servers (which was on 720455407d1c, June 23) with 'hg pull -u -r b258de1e6cea' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6297:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user: jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date: Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. haruhotz@silicon: If I create a new installation with 'hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6298:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user: jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date: Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. changeset: 5832:70b8039a2eef branch: feature/ws parent: 5826:6206a27bd2ae user: Nate Coraorn...@bx.psu.edu date: Wed Jul 27 10:48:03 2011 -0400 summary: Closed the feature/ws branch, changes from this branch were merged in 5827:f3a1086fac91. haruhotz@silicon: I am not worry about the merged branched, I am just a little bit surprised about the differences: 6298:b258de1e6cea versus 6297:b258de1e6cea Can anybody with more mercurial experience enlighten me what went wrong? and even better tell me that there is nothing to worry about... Regards, Hans ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
Re: [galaxy-dev] changeset inconsistency
Hi Nate Yes, upgrading one of our old servers with hg pull -u -r 63bc46cc73b7 and downloading a new clone with hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist, does not result in the same changeset number (ie '6528') Thank you very much Hans On 01/20/2012 09:04 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi Nate Thank you very much for your e-mail I am still testing and working on the last distribution, hopefully going live this Sunday. But I will look into downloading and upgrading (one of our dev servers) to the new distribution next week. Regards, Hans On 01/19/2012 07:39 PM, Nate Coraor wrote: Hi Hans, We're releasing a distribution today. If this is still the case with that distribution, let me know. There were branches that weren't showing up under newer versions of Mercurial. Hopefully this is all resolved in the latest. --nate On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi I am in the process of upgrading all our Galaxy servers to the current changeset (b258de1e6cea, Nov. 18) and I have noticed an inconsistency: If I upgrade one of our old servers (which was on 720455407d1c, June 23) with 'hg pull -u -r b258de1e6cea' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6297:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user: jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date: Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. haruhotz@silicon: If I create a new installation with 'hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6298:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user: jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date: Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. changeset: 5832:70b8039a2eef branch: feature/ws parent: 5826:6206a27bd2ae user: Nate Coraorn...@bx.psu.edu date: Wed Jul 27 10:48:03 2011 -0400 summary: Closed the feature/ws branch, changes from this branch were merged in 5827:f3a1086fac91. haruhotz@silicon: I am not worry about the merged branched, I am just a little bit surprised about the differences: 6298:b258de1e6cea versus 6297:b258de1e6cea Can anybody with more mercurial experience enlighten me what went wrong? and even better tell me that there is nothing to worry about... Regards, Hans ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
Re: [galaxy-dev] changeset inconsistency
Hi Nate Thank you very much for your e-mail I am still testing and working on the last distribution, hopefully going live this Sunday. But I will look into downloading and upgrading (one of our dev servers) to the new distribution next week. Regards, Hans On 01/19/2012 07:39 PM, Nate Coraor wrote: Hi Hans, We're releasing a distribution today. If this is still the case with that distribution, let me know. There were branches that weren't showing up under newer versions of Mercurial. Hopefully this is all resolved in the latest. --nate On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi I am in the process of upgrading all our Galaxy servers to the current changeset (b258de1e6cea, Nov. 18) and I have noticed an inconsistency: If I upgrade one of our old servers (which was on 720455407d1c, June 23) with 'hg pull -u -r b258de1e6cea' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6297:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user:jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date:Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. haruhotz@silicon: If I create a new installation with 'hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6298:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user:jeremy goecksjeremy.goe...@emory.edu date:Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. changeset: 5832:70b8039a2eef branch: feature/ws parent: 5826:6206a27bd2ae user:Nate Coraorn...@bx.psu.edu date:Wed Jul 27 10:48:03 2011 -0400 summary: Closed the feature/ws branch, changes from this branch were merged in 5827:f3a1086fac91. haruhotz@silicon: I am not worry about the merged branched, I am just a little bit surprised about the differences: 6298:b258de1e6cea versus 6297:b258de1e6cea Can anybody with more mercurial experience enlighten me what went wrong? and even better tell me that there is nothing to worry about... Regards, Hans ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
Re: [galaxy-dev] changeset inconsistency
Hi Hans, We're releasing a distribution today. If this is still the case with that distribution, let me know. There were branches that weren't showing up under newer versions of Mercurial. Hopefully this is all resolved in the latest. --nate On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Hans-Rudolf Hotz wrote: Hi I am in the process of upgrading all our Galaxy servers to the current changeset (b258de1e6cea, Nov. 18) and I have noticed an inconsistency: If I upgrade one of our old servers (which was on 720455407d1c, June 23) with 'hg pull -u -r b258de1e6cea' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6297:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user:jeremy goecks jeremy.goe...@emory.edu date:Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. haruhotz@silicon: If I create a new installation with 'hg clone http://www.bx.psu.edu/hg/galaxy galaxy-dist' I get the following: haruhotz@silicon: hg heads changeset: 6298:b258de1e6cea tag: tip user:jeremy goecks jeremy.goe...@emory.edu date:Thu Nov 17 15:08:49 2011 -0500 summary: Pack js scripts. changeset: 5832:70b8039a2eef branch: feature/ws parent: 5826:6206a27bd2ae user:Nate Coraor n...@bx.psu.edu date:Wed Jul 27 10:48:03 2011 -0400 summary: Closed the feature/ws branch, changes from this branch were merged in 5827:f3a1086fac91. haruhotz@silicon: I am not worry about the merged branched, I am just a little bit surprised about the differences: 6298:b258de1e6cea versus 6297:b258de1e6cea Can anybody with more mercurial experience enlighten me what went wrong? and even better tell me that there is nothing to worry about... Regards, Hans ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ ___ Please keep all replies on the list by using reply all in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
