[Top][All Lists]

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

Error while checking out the elpa branch

From: Tassilo Horn
Subject: Error while checking out the elpa branch
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:30:23 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Hi all,

[I've started this mail as a question, but while writing I got aware
that the problem isn't my fault.  So no questions here, just "FYI".]

I've just wanted to setup the emacs dev workspace on some machine as
documented on http://emacswiki.org/emacs/BzrForEmacsDevs.  When checking
out the elpa branch, I got an assertion error in bzr.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
% bzr init-repo emacs
Shared repository with trees (format: 2a)
  shared repository: emacs
% cd emacs
% bzr branch bzr+ssh://address@hidden/emacs/trunk trunk
Branched 110872 revisions.
% bzr branch bzr+ssh://address@hidden/emacs/elpa elpa
bzr: ERROR: exceptions.AssertionError: ('not present: %r', StaticTuple('', '', 

Traceback (most recent call last): ...
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

It turns out, the issue is known for more than a year.


There's a patch available since a few months at


Using that bzr version, I can get the elpa branch without errors.

The contents of the emacs/elpa directory seem to be identical between
the one checked out with bzr 2.5.1 with error, and the version checked
out with the bzr/830947-tree-root-exception branch.  However, there are
differences in emacs/.bzr/.

I've asked in the bug report if it's safe to work on the elpa branch
using bzr 2.5.1 once you've checked it out initially using the
830947-tree-root-exception branch.  (Maybe it's also ok to just ignore
the error.  Who knows...)

Oh, and Stefan also reported this bug in February:

  Status: confirmed, Importance: Low

Low importance, seriously?  Am I a bit too sensitive in that this
doesn't really boost my trust in bzr?

I've added a link to the older report as Stefan's report seems to be a
duplicate.  And the older one is of High Importance with a fix (which
might or might not be correct), so hopefully it'll find it's way into
the mainline anytime soon.


reply via email to

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