From c3e74710f9a6b3c37dce9372776ed8fe22f3b2ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mih Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:00:35 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment: Fixed in 8.20210715-g3b5a3e168 --- ...nt_20_e6ed93310ad694f6c52b52530c63f8f5._comment | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/__34__failed_to_send_content_to_remote__34__/comment_20_e6ed93310ad694f6c52b52530c63f8f5._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/__34__failed_to_send_content_to_remote__34__/comment_20_e6ed93310ad694f6c52b52530c63f8f5._comment b/doc/bugs/__34__failed_to_send_content_to_remote__34__/comment_20_e6ed93310ad694f6c52b52530c63f8f5._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..40b48c5faf --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/__34__failed_to_send_content_to_remote__34__/comment_20_e6ed93310ad694f6c52b52530c63f8f5._comment @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="mih" + avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/f881df265a423e4f24eff27c623148fd" + subject="Fixed in 8.20210715-g3b5a3e168" + date="2021-07-27T12:00:35Z" + content=""" +I tried with the update from yesterday and it checksumed the file first, and only then started the download -- which matches the code change, I think. + +After the update in the source dataset, I can now also `get` the file with git annex 8.20210310. + +I am afraid that I have no idea how to replicate the original state. It was a rather organic process that involved computation across a cluster. Each compute node operated on its own branch of a clone, the branches were pushed back and merged. A final `git annex fsck` seemingly confirmed that all is kosher. + +I tried this with two affected files, but I have a few more left. If you let me know what exactly would be meaningful input for you to get a sense of what is going on, I'd be happy to provide that. Would a full `strace` log (analog to the above) be suitable? +"""]]