Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
> Just do it on a copy of the repository on your test server, or just on a > local machine somewhere... take a file that's known to work and try to > break it. > Tony, I tried to regenerate the problem on a fresh test repo. I tried out a lot of merges and branches and removed the HEAD revision. This did not reproduce the problem. Afterwards I even tried to regenerate the scenario from the graph of a problematic file (on the test repo). The was not successful as the file in question has been around for a few years and has seen *older* CVSNT versions (the ones that committed mergepoints always, even when there were no changes made to the file). So again this was all futile. Please appreciate that we have been using CVSNT for over 2 years now and are relying heavily on it. Presently we have files that are corrupted. The worse part is that we cannot correct the situation as committing the *correct* binaries is not placing a correct version at the tip of the branch. We are now not sure as to whether we can trust the contents of the repository any more. Is there anything that can be done about this issue? Being able to fix the files on the repository is an adequate enough solution. Force committing the file (-f) does not work either. May I once again point out that I can submit a problematic RCS file to help in finding a solution. -- Kevin Agius "Tony Hoyle" <tmh at nodomain.org> wrote in message news:d8mf70$3cp$1 at paris.nodomain.org... > Kevin wrote: > > 1) I would not like to lose the file's tags, branches, etc. This would have > > a very negative impact if we need to extract older revisions. Presently we > > have broken branches and these are enough of a headache. We are using CVSNT > > on a production environment and cannot take risks. > > > 2) How do I produce a script? > > A sequence of commands to reproduce the problem is enough. > > > 3) Is build 1969 recent enough? It is the latest stable release. I did not > > manage to find build 1927 in the history page, the one that started all the > > mischief. > > Yes it should be. > > Tony