[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have differen
From: |
code |
Subject: |
[Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone) |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:55:19 +0200 |
Hello,
The following issue has been updated:
201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are
needed
Project: monotone
Status: Fixed
Reported by: Michael Raskin
URL: https://code.monotone.ca/p/monotone/issues/201/
Labels:
Type:Defect
Priority:Medium
Comments (last first):
# By Stephen Leake, Jun 25, 2012:
consensus on relaxing db check, so that's done in
a4549e0dd9f2288465eb61bb885ceaaf07359776
closing this bug; someone can open a new one if they want to persue pulling all
certs for a revision.
Status: Fixed
# By Markus Wanner, Jun 25, 2012:
> What I do prefer though is that I don't have to worry
> some info is only in some databases, which is why I'd
> like netsync to transfer all certs for negotiated
> revisions.
Arguably, monotone database are not intended to carry the exact same data.
Otherwise we'd have no branch argument to netsync. I'm not sure I agree that
all known data for a revision should be transferred, if the revision is. After
all, the user specifically asks for a certain branch to be synched - and
thereby specifies that he's not interested in whatever other data there is that
belongs to other branches.
Also consider that we do read permissions per branch. Why should one party have
to send out a branch cert the other party doesn't have read access to?
However, I'm not strongly opposed to synching all known certs for a revision. I
just think the users should be aware of the implications of such a change. For
example, to keep a private branch private, you'd then have to make sure you
don't ever sign a publicly reachable revision with your branch name. That's
quite a bit harder than simply setting proper read permissions.
It's certainly an entirely different issue from "db check" failing to accept
revisions without branch certificates.
# By Richard Hopkins, Jun 25, 2012:
I don't consider those problems either in the "source" database. What I do
prefer though is that I don't have to worry some info is only in some
databases, which is why I'd like netsync to transfer all certs for negotiated
revisions.
I like everything being everywhere for safety as well as a less of a mental
burden of remembering; I don't like the notion of sharding promoted more by
other DVCSs, and thoroughly agree with Nathaniel's slides.
# By Markus Wanner, Jun 25, 2012:
It's news to me that a missing branch cert is considered a serious problem.
What's wrong with having revisions without any certs at all? I don't personally
count that as an inconsistency (and certainly not multiple changelog, date,
author, suspend or comment certs, no matter what their content is).
I'd vote for relaxing db check to something sane, instead of fiddling with
netsync.
# By Richard Hopkins, Jun 24, 2012:
"It would be nice if monotone would pull all certs for pulled revisions."
Agree.
# By Stephen Leake, Jun 23, 2012:
confirmed in nvm head; added test pull_branch_vs_db_check
# By Michael Raskin, Dec 6, 2011:
Steps to reproduce the problem:
-------------------------------
1. mtn pull mtn://code.monotone.ca/\?net.venge.monotone
2. mtn db check
Expected result:
----------------
Success
Actual results:
---------------
"serious problem" reported, mtn db check return code non-zero
Problem is:
-----------
mtn pull doesn't pull branch certs unless they match the pattern that I pull.
mtn db check considers missing branch certs a serious consistency problem.
It would be nice if monotone would pull all certs for pulled revisions. It
would be nice if I could force mtn db check to ignore some classes of
consistency half-problems. Two valid changelogs is not a problem worth my
attention in most cases.
It is a bug that succesful mtn pull can create whatever monotone can call a
serious problem. The simplest solution is probably to demote missing branch
certificates to an mtn db check warning.
--
Issue: https://code.monotone.ca/p/monotone/issues/201/
- [Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone), code, 2012/06/23
- [Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone), code, 2012/06/24
- [Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone), code, 2012/06/25
- [Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone), code, 2012/06/25
- [Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone), code, 2012/06/25
- [Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone),
code <=
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Updated Issue 201 - "pull" and "db check" have different opinion on whether branch certs are needed (monotone), Markus Wanner, 2012/06/25