Re: checking in >= 256k file fatally corrupts rcs file

[Don Hatch <hatch@plunk.org>]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:30:40PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 18:30, Don Hatch wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:48:53PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >>On 10/8/2013 04:22, Don Hatch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Checking in a text file of size >= 256k
> >>>corrupts the rcs file, irretrievably losing most of the contents
> >>
> >>It's documented in the rcs NEWS file:
> >
> >That quote certainly doesn't describe or justify the very serious
> >corruption bug I'm seeing in any way;
> 
> I'm not trying to justify it.  I'm just pointing out that you have
> an expedient workaround for the bug which lets you run on current
> versions of Cygwin rcs.

Ah I see, I misinterpreted the point of your message.

Your workaround feels much too dangerous to me...
if I forget to set the variable, or set it wrong,
or someone else doesn't know about the variable and runs into the bug,
then corruption happens and work is irretrievably lost.
I'll be continuing to use 5.7 instead
(even though I have to go through increasing contortions
to even get 5.7, since it's no longer the current or previous version).

> 
> >it would be really good if the feature
> >could be backed out, and possibly re-introduced at a later time
> >after it has been re-worked so that doesn't break the product.
> 
> If the bug affects GNU rcs on all platforms, it needs to be fixed
> upstream.  Then Cygwin rcs will get the fix when the Cygwin rcs
> package maintainer updates the packages.
> 
> If the bug is in the Cygwin rcs port or in Cygwin itself, the actual
> bug needs to be fixed, rather than hack out the feature that tickles
> the bug.

I certainly agree with you as a long-term plan;
however at this moment, it seems to me,
we have a dangerously broken current version in place
that is causing people to lose data and work
(I lost a significant amount when I hit the bug).

Would it be possible to simply declare 5.8 DOA
and revert the "considered most stable" version to be 5.7?
If not, can we make a 5.9 that's identical to 5.7,
ship that immediately as the "considered most stable" version,
and then we can more leisurely and properly work on figuring out
what went wrong and where?

Don

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple