On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:29 AM, David Roundy wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:21:56PM -0000, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your continued investigation into this.
>
> My thanks as well.

You're welcome!  And thank you for all the hard work you two have put  
into darcs.  Making software "production grade" is a lot of work.  I  
think darcs is getting there, but I personally won't be happy with it  
until there is a string of all-green buildslaves showing a set of  
unit tests which collectively exercise all of the important branches.

> That sounds good, particularly if there were two (or more) patches
> involving the tar.gz file, which would explain the continued  
> persistence of
> the repository corruption.

There were two -- one that did nothing but add the .gz file, and the  
next did nothing but remove it.

How can we write a unit test that will show that the current version  
of darcs doesn't suffer from this bug?  (Such as test would also give  
us confidence from now on that we haven't regressed and reintroduced  
this bug.)  We could either add darcsver-1.1.1.tar.gz to the  
repository in the tests/ subdirectory, or encode the entire contents  
of darcsver-1.1.1.tar.gz into a shell script or perl script test.   
Or, perhaps you guys, knowing the actual cause of the bug, could  
suggest a smaller file that would stimulate the same logic.  Is it  
just any gzipped file which is touched by two patches?   
darcsver-1.1.1.tar.gz is 6013 bytes.  The minimal gzip file (the gzip  
of the empty file) is 28 bytes.

Regards,

Zooko