[Top][All Lists]

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

possible commit problem

From: John
Subject: possible commit problem
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:52:52 GMT

At our work we use the pserver access method to interact with the CVS
repository.  We had an instance where a user had issued a commit and prior
to the commit completing they made a last minute change to the file.  A
subsequent “cvs status” showed the file to be up to date so the user
concluded that their change was included in the repository revision;
however, that was not the case.

While tracing the client we found, shall I call it a “window of
opportunity”, which we believe was the possible cause of the incorrect
situation.  To illustrate this, let's take the following scenario:

1)      User issues commit
2)      send_modified in client.c sends the file --- (file has a timestamp of
3)      Prior to the commit completing (possibly due to a repository lock on the
server) the file is modified in the client's work area by another process
(file now has a timestamp of today).
4)      The server then talks back and the client gets a “Checked-in” response
5)      The client then eventually calls update_entries who reads the new
revision from the server and gets the files timestamp (todays) for the file
in the work area and copies that to local_timestamp.
6)      Register is then called passing local_timestamp (todays - not
7)      Register creates a new entnode with todays (incorrect) timestamp and
eventually returns to update_entries.
8)      update_entries returns to call_in_directory who then calls Entries_Close
to write out the entries file.

The CVS/Entries file now has the revision that matches what is in the
repository; however, the entries timestamp does not reflect the files
timestamp that existed for the file when it was actually committed. 
Consequently, a status, diff, etc will say that the file is up to date.

Let me state also that we are back-leveled a bit (1.11.14).  Can someone
please let me know if this doesn't seem to be a problem in the current 1.11

Thanks for your assistance,
John Elgin

reply via email to

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