Re: [Gnu-arch-users] {arch} perms -> shared revlib?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 10:19, John Meinel wrote:
> Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >>>___ 04-09-24 09:43:00 address@hidden:~ $ lal \
> >>>revlib/address@hidden/cpc/cpc--stable/cpc--stable--1.0/cpc--stable--1.0--patch-5/\{arch\}/
> >>>total 24
> > 
> > 
> >>>drwxr-xr-x    2 arch     arch         4096 Sep 24 09:42 ,,inode-sigs/
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >>>and as you will note, ,,inode-sids _in the revlib_,
> >>>is not group writable. It's the only file like this in the revlib.
> >>>
> >>>Is this a problem for my shared revlib?
> >>>If so, can it be fixed?
> > 
> > 
> >>Well, from my knowledge this shouldn't be a problem. ,,inode-sigs is not 
> >>supposed to ever change. It is basically like a hash checksum of the 
> >>files in the revlib to make sure they haven't changed. (it is actually 
> >>some group of timestamp, inode number, file size, ....)
> >>
> >>I'm pretty sure if it is created in that location, it isn't meant to 
> >>change, so you shouldn't need write access. You might run into problems 
> >>if someone needs to clean up the revlib, and doesn't have access.
> >>
> >>Of course, the *proof* is to run 2 clients under different users and see 
> >>if you have problems :)
> >>
> >>let us know what you find.
> > 
> > 
> > Will do.
> > 
> > Having a look inside that directory, I see that there is no patch-3.
> > Does this mean I've stuffed up somewhere?:
> > 
> > 
> > ___ 04-09-24 10:07:27 address@hidden:~/revlib $ ll
> > address@hidden/cpc/cpc--stable/cpc--stable--1.0/cpc--stable--1.0--patch-5/\{arch\}/\,\,inode-sigs/
> > total 488
> > -r--r--r--    1 arch     arch        91963 Sep 24 09:42
> > address@hidden
> > -r--r--r--    1 arch     arch        93850 Sep 24 09:42
> > address@hidden
> > -r--r--r--    1 arch     arch        92946 Sep 24 09:42
> > address@hidden
> > -r--r--r--    1 arch     arch        95190 Sep 24 09:42
> > address@hidden
> > -r--r--r--    1 arch     arch        95332 Sep 24 09:42
> > address@hidden
> > 
> > tia
> > zen
> > 
> 
> Is there a patch-3 in your revlib? Revlibs don't have to contain *every* 
> revision.

That was a freshly rebuilt revlib (greedy, sparse) - I rm -rf'ed the
previous arch@ tree (resulting in an empty revlib) and then did a tla
get, and the result is what we're looking at here.

If I look at the revlib, there is a single filesystem branch thus:

___ 04-09-24 10:29:20 address@hidden:~ $ lal
revlib/address@hidden/cpc/cpc--stable/cpc--stable--1.0/
total 4
drwxrwsr-x   13 arch     arch         4096 Sep 24 10:17
cpc--stable--1.0--patch-6/

(ie the parent dirs don't have any other children than the single dirs
you see above, and inside that "cpc--stable--1.0--patch-6" is a version
of the tree itself - a bunch of dirs and files constitution my project)


If I go into the working tree (the one that resulted in the revlib being
populated - my only wd at the moment), I get:

___ 04-09-24 10:26:25 address@hidden:~ $ cd merge/
___ 04-09-24 10:26:27 address@hidden:~/merge $ tlal
base-0
    2004-09-21 03:34:43 GMT      CashPoolComps.com Releases
<address@hidden>
    tag of address@hidden/cpc--devel--0.1--patch-38
patch-1
    2004-09-21 05:04:30 GMT      CashPoolComps.com Releases
<address@hidden>
    merge address@hidden/patch-39
patch-2
    2004-09-22 01:55:52 GMT      CashPoolComps.com Releases
<address@hidden>
    star-marge parthDev--4.0
patch-3
    2004-09-22 05:21:16 GMT      CashPoolComps.com Releases
<address@hidden>
    parth patch-4
patch-4
    2004-09-23 23:24:24 GMT      CashPoolComps.com Releases
<address@hidden>
    zen@: patch-40..45
patch-5
    2004-09-23 23:41:36 GMT      CashPoolComps.com Releases
<address@hidden>
    perms: {arch}/
patch-6
    2004-09-24 00:16:32 GMT      CashPoolComps.com Releases
<address@hidden>
    perms .arch-ids in proj root


> You can also do a 'tla changes cpc--stable--1.0--patch-3' to see how 
> your working directory differs from patch-3. It should let you know 
> whether it is adding that revision to the library, or where it is 
> getting the patch-3 from.

That shows basically the full output of patch-3. But when I look at
the supposed changes of patch-3, they are definitely there in my wd.

I'm guessing it has something to do with my attemp to clean up my
'change history' mess - I just don't know what.

I guess if I find any problems, I'll then know :/

thanks
zen