[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] revision lock problems (with
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] revision lock problems (with |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:51:14 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:57:18AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> How did that happen? Did you break a lock in that revision "by hand"?
Yeah -- if tla commit fails because it sees the archive is signed, but can't
find a way to sign it, it leaves the locks state messed up, with this error
message:
********************************
SIGNATURE DEMANDED FOR ARCHIVE
address@hidden
BUT NO RULE PROVIDED
Consider creating ~/.arch-params/signing/address@hidden
or ~/.arch-params/signing/=default
********************************
(You may also have to use tla lock-revision -b before
retrying this transaction. See tla lock-revision -H)
unable to complete transaction due to signature failure
However I couldn't get `tla lock-revision -b' to do anything sensible:
$ tla lock-revision -b tla-tools--devo--0--patch-2
lock-revision: revision not locked --
address@hidden/tla-tools--devo--0--patch-2
$ tla lock-revision -b tla-tools--devo--0--patch-1
lock-revision: revision not locked --
address@hidden/tla-tools--devo--0--patch-1
$ tla lock-revision -u tla-tools--devo--0--patch-1
lock-revision: error unlocking revision
address@hidden/tla-tools--devo--0--patch-1 -- lock not held
No doubt this is due to operator error in some way but at least I think the
error message (and/or the help for lock-revision) should be a bit more clear
about exactly how you're supposed to do it; well ideally of course, commit
shouldn't leave the revision locked in this circumstance!
Anyway, I couldn't figure out how to break the lock properly, so I did
manually by moving the lock directory, in a way that always seemed to work in
the past. I tried to make sure the result was correct by looking at the
corresponding lock directory in an un-messed-up branch/revision in the same
archive, and as far as I could see the contents/permissions were the same ...
but I supposed I must have missed something.
So what exactly _is_ the lock directory supposed to look like now? From
your response I gather that something is obviously wrong ...
Thanks,
-Miles
--
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it." Mahatma Ghandi