Restore SVN server from files

Hello everyone, I had a RAID 5 storage, and I used to have a SVN server on this. Unfortunately the RAID layout failed. I succeeded to the data from my server including the folder where I created the SVN repositories. Now that I have the files from repositories, what is the correct plan for re-

Re: Restore SVN server from files

Am 18.03.2012 14:49, schrieb Alin ILIE: I had a RAID 5 storage, and I used to have a SVN server on this. Unfortunately the RAID layout failed. I succeeded to the data from my server including the folder where I created the SVN repositories. Now that I have the files from repositories, what is the

Re: Restore SVN server from files

The backup transfer to a different machine did not worked, and I didn't notice this. :( Got it ! 1) Install SVN on a new linux server 2) Configure SVN 3) Place the files recovered in the place where I defined repositories home in the step 2 4) If I will change the server URL, I have to run svn

Re: Restore SVN server from files

On Mar 19, 2012, at 02:59, Alin ILIE wrote: > I have to run svn relocate or svn switch --relocate according to the version > that I will have on the new server. Actually, according to the version of the svn client you run on each machine accessing the repository.

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Daniel Shahaf writes: >> From what is there so far, yes. We do have different operations >> occurring at the same time, but for these ones, I see MERGE and DELETE >> verbs overlapping in the same or near time intervals according to the >> Apache logs. I just did a quick look in the Apache logs du

Re: Restore SVN server from files

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Alin ILIE wrote: > The backup transfer to a different machine did not worked, and I didn't > notice this. :( > > Got it ! > 1) Install SVN on a new linux server > 2) Configure SVN > 3) Place the files recovered in the place where I defined repositories > home in t

#4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 16:28:21 +0200: > [ cc += dev@. summary for dev@: investigating issue #4129: predecessor > count of rN is not incremented by one wrt that of r(N-1); see > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4129 ] Okay, count me happy :-) I can reprodu

AW: a simple recipe to 'obliterate' an item from svn repository

Hi, Giorgio, Maybe "svndumpfilter" can help: http://svnbook.spears.at/nightly/de/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.tk.svndumpfilter http://svnbook.spears.at/nightly/de/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.filtering Best regards Markus Schaber -- _

Reintegrate woes

We have been working for a long time (almost a year) on two products in paralell. One is a maintenance product, i.e. general bug fixes and very little new features, called "base" and is effectively trunk. The other is a "new and improved" with all the latest bells and whistles, and is handled

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Daniel Shahaf writes: > The bug reproduced with either "ServerLimit 1" or "ThreadLimit 1" in > httpd.conf. (That forced both commits to be served by the same process > (resp., by different processes).) I use httpd 2.4.1 with event MPM. I can reproduce ove ra_local: svnadmin create repo svn mk

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

shashank subramaniam wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 20:29:47 +0530: > Hey, > We tried looping as a solution to the ''Predescessor > Count for the root node revision is wrong' error (We looped the commit > alone till it is commited).This works, but if 100 people try to commit to

Quirk with svn:ignore

I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to see if someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current version) or just an aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x. Given a tree with trunk + cache + htdocs + logs + system I have tried putting

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On 19/03/12 16:26, Geoff Hoffman wrote: I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to see if someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current version) or just an aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x. Given a tree with trunk + cache + htdo

Re: Reintegrate woes

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:26:37PM +, Tennebø Frode wrote: > We have been working for a long time (almost a year) on two products in > paralell. One is a maintenance product, i.e. general bug fixes and very > little new features, called "base" and is effectively trunk. The other is a > "ne

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:26, Geoff Hoffman wrote: > I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to see if > someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current version) or just an > aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x. > > Given a tree with > > trunk >

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Geoff Hoffman wrote: > I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to see if > someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current version) or just an > aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x. > > Given a tree with > > trun

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Giulio Troccoli < giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk> wrote: > Do you mean that the files are shown with an A in the first column? No, they're shown as ? logs/error.log ? logs/access.log But they're not automagically ignored, even though they match "logs/*" wh

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Geoff Hoffman wrote: > > Mark, I believe you, however I don't see which part of the docs you link > to addresses this case... > This part: When found on a versioned directory, the svn:ignore property is expected to contain a list of newline-delimited file pattern

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

Ahhh Rats. Thanks I missed that. On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Mark Phippard wrote: > in that same directory. -- This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, pleas

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On 19/03/12 17:11, Geoff Hoffman wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Giulio Troccoli > wrote: Do you mean that the files are shown with an A in the first column? No, they're shown as ? logs/error.log ? logs/access.log But they're not

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Giulio Troccoli < giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 19/03/12 17:11, Geoff Hoffman wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Giulio Troccoli < > giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk> wrote: > >> Do you mean that the files are shown with an

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Philip Martin writes: > I can reproduce ove ra_local: > > svnadmin create repo > svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A > svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B > svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1 > svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2 > svn ps svn:mergeinfo /P:2 wc1/A > svn ps svn:mergeinfo /Q:2 wc2/B > svn mkdir wc1/

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:25:22 +: > Philip Martin writes: > > > I can reproduce ove ra_local: > > > > svnadmin create repo > > svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A > > svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B > > svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1 > > svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2 > > sv

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:16, Giulio Troccoli wrote: > Ok, have you tried ignoring just logs rather than all files, I mean svn ps > svn:ignore logs ? The logs directory has already been added and committed; telling Subversion to now ignore it will do nothing useful.

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

On 03/19/2012 01:25 PM, Philip Martin wrote: > Philip Martin writes: > >> I can reproduce ove ra_local: >> >> svnadmin create repo >> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A >> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B >> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1 >> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2 >> svn ps svn:mergeinfo /P:2

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400: > Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend? No. % ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb 2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] CWD: /home/daniel/src/svn/t1/subversion/tests/cmdline 2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] EXCEPTION: Fa

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

"C. Michael Pilato" writes: > On 03/19/2012 01:25 PM, Philip Martin wrote: >> Philip Martin writes: >> >>> I can reproduce ove ra_local: >>> >>> svnadmin create repo >>> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A >>> svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B >>> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1 >>> svn co file://`p

Re: Quirk with svn:ignore

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Ryan Schmidt < subversion-20...@ryandesign.com> wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:16, Giulio Troccoli wrote: > > > Ok, have you tried ignoring just logs rather than all files, I mean svn > ps svn:ignore logs ? > > The logs directory has already been added and comm

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Daniel Shahaf writes: > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400: >> Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend? > > No. > > % ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb > 2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] CWD: > /home/daniel/src/svn/t1/subversion/tests/cmdline > 2012

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

On 03/19/2012 02:24 PM, Philip Martin wrote: > "C. Michael Pilato" writes: >> Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend? > > Yes, I think it is. > > For BDB the dag_node_t type in dag.c doesn't have a node_revision > member. When update_ancestry does svn_fs_bdb__put_node_revision it > writes

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 18:31:41 +: > Daniel Shahaf writes: > > > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400: > >> Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend? > > > > No. > > > > % ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb > > 2012-03-19 20:2

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Philip Martin writes: > If I use the debugger to manually set target->node_revision to NULL > inside svn_fs_fs__dag_increment_mergeinfo_count then the commit works. > I'm not exactly sure how all the FSFS caching layers are supposed to > interact. Is tree.c:update_ancestry supposed to update the

Re: #4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 18:45:37 +: > Philip Martin writes: > > > If I use the debugger to manually set target->node_revision to NULL > > inside svn_fs_fs__dag_increment_mergeinfo_count then the commit works. > > I'm not exactly sure how all the FSFS caching layers are sup

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Hello Daniel, Philip. I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message". It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job. Do you need any more information from me at this point? Thanks. Jason Wong.

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700: > Hello Daniel, Philip. > > I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re: > predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message". > It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job. > > Do you need any more i

preventing commits (this is *not* a classic hook question)

Hello, I'm wondering if there is any strategy for temporary preventing people from committing to a svn repository, without the person who sets the hook (or sth similar) being the admin of the svn repository. Thus, in this case, there is no option to directly access the /hooks/ folder. A "poor man

Re: preventing commits (this is *not* a classic hook question)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Michael Hüttermann wrote: > Hello, > > I'm wondering if there is any strategy for temporary preventing people > from committing to a svn repository, without the person who sets the hook > (or sth similar) being the admin of the svn repository. Thus, in this > case,

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700: >> Hello Daniel, Philip. >> >> I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re: >> predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message". >> It looks like you all h

Re: predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message

Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 15:34:53 -0700: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700: > >> Hello Daniel, Philip. > >> > >> I have been following the thread: "#4129 is reproducible Re: > >> predecessor count for

Re: preventing commits (this is *not* a classic hook question)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Michael Hüttermann wrote: > Hello, > > I'm wondering if there is any strategy for temporary preventing people > from committing to a svn repository, without the person who sets the hook > (or sth similar) being the admin of the svn repository. Thus, in this > case