subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: Possible (reproducible) ASSERT error with SVN 1.8.11 on Windows 8.1 x64
Date Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:22:53 GMT
On 18.01.2015 13:44, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tux. [mailto:zeug@tuxproject.de]
>> Sent: zaterdag 17 januari 2015 19:18
>> To: users@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Possible (reproducible) ASSERT error with SVN 1.8.11 on Windows
> 8.1
>> x64
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is a known error, but as I tried with TortoiseSVN
>> and SlikSvn, I'm positive it's an upstream problem:
>>
>> I use Windows 8.1 x64 and wanted to checkout the FreeBSD docs
>> repositories.
>>
>>> svn co https://svn0.us-west.FreeBSD.org/doc/
>> This reproducibly leads to this error:
>>
>>> svn: E235000: In Datei
>>>> ..\..\..\subversion\libsvn_wc\update_editor.c<, Zeile 1550:
>>> Assert-Anweisung schlug fehl (action ==
>>> svn_wc_conflict_action_delete)
>> (Yes, I'm German. Hope that's not a problem. ;-))
> What Brank said: This assertion should only be triggerable from an 'svn
> update', so most likely the directory already existed before you started the
> checkout. (This will continue the checkout, as an update)
> This would be the interesting part, as we haven't got a bug report for this
> assertion that allowed us to reproduce this problem.
>
> Do you have a more specific path to checkout?
> This command checks out the entire repository; something we don't call good
> practice (As it breaks things like cheap copies, etc)... and it certainly is
> a slow way to reproduce a problem.
>
> I'm busy checking out from this url for about an hour now, and I have a
> multi GB working copy, but I'm not done yet and haven't seen an error yet.

I tried the checkout eariler today with 1.8.11 on OSX, and got no
assertion. Same happens when I retry the same command when the working
copy already exists. Since this part of the code is not platform
specific in any way, I have to assume that there's some specific
precondition that's not described in the original report.

-- Brane


Mime
View raw message