From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:39:39 -0800 Message-ID: <20090127233939.GD1321@spearce.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: PJ Hyett , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 28 00:41:10 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LRxYH-0007hX-Es for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:41:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751281AbZA0Xjm (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:39:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751272AbZA0Xjl (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:39:41 -0500 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:52281 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750994AbZA0Xjk (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:39:40 -0500 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B5FD038210; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, PJ Hyett wrote: > > > To expand further, here's the output from the command line when this happened. > > > > ~/Development/github(jetty)$ git push pjhyett jetty > > fatal: bad object e13a86261c6e710af8fd4b5fb093b28b8583d820 > > error: pack-objects died with strange error > > error: failed to push some refs to 'git@github.com:pjhyett/github.git' > > Hmm. The only thing I could think of is that the pack-objects used by > your git-daemon is somehow not at the right version... No, that's pack-objects on the client. Its freaking weird. I don't know why a server side upgrade would cause this on the client side. FWIW, in 1.6.1 the only mention of those bad object messages is inside revision.c. I can't see why we'd get one of those by itself. I would have expected messages from deeper down too, like from sha1_file.c. -- Shawn.