Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Rick, I've never seen what you describe - if audit says the files were tagged then they were tagged... The second tag will not have tagged files that already had the tag - hence why there were less tag records for the second tag - but does not explain why there were any tags at all the second time. I'd need a trace of the error occuring to consider begin investigating. Regards, Arthur Barrett -----Original Message----- From: cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org on behalf of Rick Martin Sent: Tue 6/19/2007 3:43 AM To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook Cc: Subject: [cvsnt] rtag problem Early today one of our developers ran an rtag to create a tag on a branch for a module. He subsequently ran an operation that relied on the new tag and the operation failed. I investigated and found that the tag was not on at least a fair number of files in the module. I had him re-run the process to create the tag and everything worked OK. We have database auditing turned on and when I look at the tag log I can see the original operation processed 5759 records. This is correct. The files I spot checked that did not have the tag are including in the audit database as having gotten the tag. The audit DB shows that when he re-ran the rtag again it marked 4064 files. Literally all of these files were in the first group, too. From what I can tell the rtag operation does not create audit entries for the files where the tag already existed (we did not have _F on). The rtag call is programmatically generated so there isn't much chance of the user entering the wrong values. There are no other tag operations in the tag audit database for this time frame until we re-ran the operation. He did not capture the output from the original operation so I don't know if something significant was returned but the audit DB certainly looks like it succeeded. We're using 2.5.03 (Scorpio) Build 2382 for both client and server. Any ideas? Thanks, Rick _______________________________________________ cvsnt mailing list cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt https://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/en.asp#downcvs