[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz bug: network-access despite local repo

From: Jan Hudec
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz bug: network-access despite local repo
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:14:56 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:32:20 +0200, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 15:31 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> > Matthieu Moy wrote:
> > 
> > >Ulf Ochsenfahrt <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > [ ... snip ... ]
> > >
> > My guess is that he branched from a remote repository, and "baz commit"
> > is trying to generate the complete ancestry for the branch. That
> > requires connecting to the old archive.
> That is a bad idea. The ancestry (according to CONTINUATION) is:
> address@hidden/cqs--mainline--0.1--patch-6
> address@hidden/cqs--ulfjack--0.1--version-0
> address@hidden/cqs--mainline--0.2--version-0
> address@hidden/cqs--mainline--0.2
> That old archive may not even exist anymore. (I'm actually wondering
> that it is still registered.) What's worse is that it first commited the
> patch to the archive, then went to look for the archive and DID NOT mark
> the tree has having the patch.
> I had to Ctrl-C it because I didn't have network at that time and when I
> tried to continue with tla, tla told me that the tree was not
> up-to-date. So i tla updated it and - guess what - I got a conflict.

Yes, I had similar problem when I had misconfigured signing. It commited
the patch, but failed while marking the tree (because it checked the
signature it just made and failed since I gave it the wrong key id).

The solution here is to sync-tree. Since the changes actually are there,
status shold say it's unchanged after that.

                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]