Data corruption local rep, bitbucket repo has more heads than local one?
Matt Harbison
mharbison72 at gmail.com
Thu May 25 02:49:28 UTC 2017
On Wed, 24 May 2017 03:59:46 -0400, Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I have a strange problem.
> In my local repo
>
> hg heads gives me
> changeset: 92:77560cdc346d
> tag: tip
> parent: 87:2700940f341d
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
>
> changeset: 72:8e632d9a64f4
> branch: Uwe
> parent: 70:db25b273eba4
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Fri May 19 10:29:53 2017 +0000
> summary: Actualize matlab file for cal IC
>
> changeset: 38:727faccf9762
> branch: linda
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Sat May 06 10:26:57 2017 +0000
> summary: Finish merge hoja3_corr en hoja3
>
> And the graph looks ok
> @ changeset: 92:77560cdc346d
> | tag: tip
> | parent: 87:2700940f341d
> | user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> | date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> | summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
> |
> o changeset: 87:2700940f341d
> | user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> | date: Tue May 23 10:15:29 2017 +0000
> | summary: H6: Repair region of acceptation of E1/E3/E4, correct
> small error with Sres in E4
> |
>
> That repo I push regularly to bitbucket, but somehow a data corruption
> occurred.
Doing you have anything incoming in this local repo? What does `hg log
--hidden -r 921b9b8667b1` say?
> When I clone the bitbucket repo to another directory and run
> hg heads and hg log -G
> the outcome is different
>
> changeset: 80:77560cdc346d
> tag: tip
> parent: 77:2700940f341d
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
>
> changeset: 79:fc056d395e04
> parent: 77:2700940f341d
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
>
> changeset: 78:921b9b8667b1
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
>
> changeset: 62:8e632d9a64f4
> branch: Uwe
> parent: 60:db25b273eba4
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Fri May 19 10:29:53 2017 +0000
> summary: Actualize matlab file for cal IC
>
> changeset: 54:1f3c65063543
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Wed May 17 12:14:30 2017 +0000
> summary: Correct E20/21/H4
>
> changeset: 52:a97d4ee3feb5
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Wed May 17 08:58:55 2017 +0000
> summary: Acclara 10
>
> changeset: 41:aaf89a0885f5
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Mon May 08 15:10:08 2017 +0000
> summary: Quitar ejercico duplicado de estudio dental
>
> changeset: 36:727faccf9762
> branch: linda
> user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> date: Sat May 06 10:26:57 2017 +0000
> summary: Finish merge hoja3_corr en hoja3
>
> And hg log -G
> @ changeset: 80:77560cdc346d
> | tag: tip
> | parent: 77:2700940f341d
> | user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> | date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> | summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
> |
> | o changeset: 79:fc056d395e04
> |/ parent: 77:2700940f341d
> | user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> | date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> | summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
> |
> | o changeset: 78:921b9b8667b1
> |/ user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> | date: Tue May 23 16:14:53 2017 +0000
> | summary: Correct H_0 en P4/H6
> |
> o changeset: 77:2700940f341d
> | user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> | date: Tue May 23 10:15:29 2017 +0000
> | summary: H6: Repair region of acceptation of E1/E3/E4, correct
> small error with Sres in E4
> |
> o changeset: 76:637df8ba9677
> | user: Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es>
> | date: Tue May 23 09:43:41 2017 +0000
> | summary: Modify tables
>
> Which reflects the new heads.
Does `hg log -T phases` say that 921b9b8667b1 and fc056d395e04 are
public? If so, does forcing them to draft make them disappear? (I'm
assuming that you were experimenting with evolve from a couple weeks
ago.) Note that if they do disappear, you will have to figure out how to
set them to draft on bitbucket, and any clones you made from it. (You
will have a similar issue with them coming back on pull if you strip them.)
You shouldn't have gotten multiple heads on the server like this, unless
you are using -f when you push.
> So I am puzzled. Which repo is corrupted the local one, or the bitbucket
> one.
>
> What would be the best solution?
> Delete the bitbucket one and recreate it, pushing the local one
> without the heads.
> Delete the local one clone bitbucket and merge/rebase the heads?
Any idea what the differences between the 3 commits are?
> Thanks
>
> Uwe Brauer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at mercurial-scm.org
> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list