Subject: Subversion problems

From: Loredana Lo Conte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:02:56 +0100 (BST)

Hi,

Playing around. From my ale working copy:

  % svn diff -r26:27 Makefile.in

produces:

svn: The repository is locked, perhaps for db recovery.
svn: REPORT request failed on /ale/trunk
svn:
Berkeley DB error while opening environment for filesystem
/usr/local/svn/ale/db:
DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery

Same error when I try:

  % svn up -r26

from a test directory generated with:

  % svn cp ale/ ale-test/

A minor detail:

  % svn -v
subcommand argument required
Type `svn help' for help on Subversion usage.

does not seem to work, but:

  % svn --version
Subversion Client, version 0.14.1 (r2927)
   compiled Aug 11 2002, 16:39:09

Copyright (C) 2000-2002 CollabNet.
Subversion is open source software, see http://subversion.tigris.org/

The following repository access (RA) modules are available:

* ra_dav : Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV (DeltaV) protocol.
  - handles 'http' schema

seems ok.

-Loredana

---

From: Karl Fogel <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 17:17:54 -0500

> DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery

Yup, it's a known bug, I'm sorry for the inconvenience this is causing
you (and us!) :-(.  At some point I need to upgrade the Red Bean
server to the latest Subversion, which may help this, but
unfortunately we're absolutely swamped at work right now, and I won't
be able to get to it before you travel.

> does not seem to work, but:

In Subversion, `-v' is not a synonym for `--version', it means
"verbose" instead.  Did you do what it said, and run 'svn help' to
see? :-)

>    compiled Aug 11 2002, 16:39:09

Okay, thanks.  The bug is on the server side in this case, your
client is fine.

-K

---

From: Niels Larsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:10:43 -0500

So quiet its been since august 26, have I dropped off the list .. ? 

Niels

---

From: Karl Fogel <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Oct 2002 20:05:23 -0500

> So quiet its been since august 26, have I dropped off the list .. ? 

No, just that Loredana was out of the country (she just got back, and
is catching up on things).

---

From: Loredana Lo Conte <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:36:28 +0100 (BST)

> is catching up on things).

And where were the others? :)

I am "using" Ale, at the moment. Also, got in touch with Bob Rogers, he
would be perfect to help with Ale, but guess what? He is overwhelmed by
other projects, including two lovely daughters... Let's see.

Loredana

---

From: Loredana Lo Conte <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:12:22 +0100 (BST)

> "verbose" instead.  Did you do what it said, and run 'svn help' to

Then there is a bug in the svn documentation. From info svn:

       -v or --version
              The subversion and svn version is printed.

and from the man page, man svn:

       -v or --version
              The subversion and svn version is printed.

And svn help stops at "update", does not give any info about version :)

At least as of:

 	http://subversion.tigris.org/files/documents/15/690/subversion-r2927.tar.gz
which is the version I have installed locally.

Loredana

---

From: Loredana Lo Conte <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:06:35 +0100 (BST)

What did I do wrong?

I have two more questions:

1) Is the second column in the output of "svn st -vN ." always containing
the same svn revion number? (I seem to remember it did not at a certain
point, but I am not sure.)

2) I have been tempted to add "svn up" to make dist. I haven't,
but would not be a good thing to do? Any reason why not?

Loredana

---

From: Karl Fogel <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Oct 2002 11:33:04 -0500

> What did I do wrong?

I don't know.  What did you try, and what happened? :-)

> point, but I am not sure.)

Have you printed out the svn handbook?  It would really help.

The second column contains the working revision of the file, that is,
the head revision of the last time the file was updated in your
working copy.  The third column shows the revision at which the file
was last changed.  So for the range of revisions between the two, you
know that no change was committed to the file.

> but would not be a good thing to do? Any reason why not?

I think it's fine.  Either that, or make it error out if not
everything is at the same working revision.

-K

---

From: Karl Fogel <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Oct 2002 11:33:34 -0500

> which is the version I have installed locally.

You might want to upgrade.  The entire option processing system has
been rewritten since then.