From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B03A1F453 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727648AbfAaWkZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:40:25 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f53.google.com ([209.85.208.53]:35558 "EHLO mail-ed1-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726885AbfAaWkZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:40:25 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f53.google.com with SMTP id x30so3946823edx.2 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:40:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=+Kaz4qSTMr598yayMHCY9udRvBY6A1P1dmBegGSSYBI=; b=inr6hqFVQn6C89HJa5Ymz7x61djtDIxxIB8U3K4/GkwfcTZykefI3ximLaYW7aNPsj eNTurTkWHb7EO8ssCcoa0mtb92iGA7frPsxRcGv/Nnsd8LzhZyqW9tgpfjBi+IMC+zhS Ti0jSA9IrcEGcaCZiXTPn4t0F/jYSpvNsK8HQnz/ahga6BYxhyAokbew/X5qscL/+2jv VIb7r6GqVAogxp4s+PeT8eAwkVXI2Ti0HTaPOaR8V9RetDBL8kUr/cOkWE1OIIwTvL72 lNr4M3n/eClwhvqlw1DGqUv+wS9mRAJUSPD+NyQHcFMgwCjHyOMkcLXIkb1b35M/txAQ Z5XQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=+Kaz4qSTMr598yayMHCY9udRvBY6A1P1dmBegGSSYBI=; b=ASY3QVKViPDoJC3Rxu94wHQcXXg3iXu3oJ3PGjx5Z8VISYYZO/GpguQ/eZbGyF7GsY 24CtTgNbE7ivLkqvkgfGqVZFZSN8PjWPyhx0BO8Dk9GIPXJWW1EDN43ni/Vx5LYM09uj ZV59yriUjv5fuajmGt4+MhgEsw3iRiqQus435r5/EeoYF6QM8nlrQex85aZWC/XV/gHM 2fBWHOirM/O77otqibIeDI0mKFq56IDbgOTSJlkAVWMn3HtlkRmZWbm86rU2Hq3weQNC kSHUZIeUXxe+F7RDKlFm93AQU+PTehL58gn9cjpGEpan8OU8fVyMXH8qRIERTlkfxFE9 Q84Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdaDUGEEE4oYxftr6+Is5eySIW1zDBREdzY8wBCpuhqeyu/V73u ZROrQU3rJHY3AnsQ3mUMRAg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7GTFDVWCWN6C42k68jRuoBOMCVrfZ/WAyArz74tvwU51hVMr6TT/o3fpF7qSER6XX9jCToEA== X-Received: by 2002:a50:9a01:: with SMTP id o1mr36978429edb.82.1548974423106; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from evledraar (ptr-a4kmumi3cjyxp9zp488.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be. [2a02:1811:5182:c100:ea6c:e022:ac1f:78a8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n11sm1597912edn.14.2019.01.31.14.40.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:40:22 -0800 (PST) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Robert Cathles Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Git annex possible bug References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid; Emacs 26.1; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:40:21 +0100 Message-ID: <87tvho30yy.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 31 2019, Robert Cathles wrote: > We use git annex and found an issue where one machine that had run > 'git annex sync' and 'git annex sync --content' was not reporting any > issues, but any other machines were report 99 issues when running 'git > annex get'. > > The message for each file was that it was not known to exist on any > repo. doing some searching I found 'git annex fsck' so ran that in the > following fashion on the 'broken' machines: 'git annex fsck > --from=LocalMirrorName --fast'. During this we saw git was updating > the location log for nearly all the missing files. Running 'git annex > get' afterwards resolved the issue and got the files. We found we had > to repeat this on all affected machines. > > The machine that did the original sync was running git 2.7.4 and other > machines were either running the same, or 2.17.1. > > A test I also tried: I copied one annex file from inside the .git > folder of the original machine that ran the sync, and added it to the > same location on a broken machine, then ran sync and get, and it > reported 98 issues instead. > > Does this seem like a bug with git annex? Is there a possible gap in > the way that git annex reports that all is fine - perhaps to do with > the index? Or does this seem to be more likely an issue we created > ourselves? Would there have been any other commands we could have run > to resolve this issue or should have tried out first? (Apart from just > deleting each of our clones and starting again) This may be a bug in git-annex, or not, but in any case you've reached the wrong people to ask. The git-annex tool is not part of git itself, it's a third-party plugin. You'll probably want to file a bug here: https://git-annex.branchable.com/bugs/