DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=Vm/QqdV3eNqW1kdzMjQ+7YDg4w+X1nfxQupTuu9Dico
	Wev/emeQcJlqPXofA0Kgy2fywNjDYW8UTAws4esnpPbYabPnKOTxc5KYioM7jEgF
	BLvJhy6C1ZJcQebnIomFeYheBM9Gb3athlltk3UitKSTLSNfMcHLiDO4fc+IIJRY
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <52555C16.5090505@etr-usa.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 07:37:26 -0600
From: Warren Young <warren@etr-usa.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cygwin-L <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: checking in >= 256k file fatally corrupts rcs file
References: <20131008102204.GB9241@plunk.org> <525499E5.4090608@etr-usa.com> <20131009003055.GA30082@plunk.org> <5254B1C0.9020004@etr-usa.com> <20131009070534.GA8855@plunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131009070534.GA8855@plunk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/9/2013 01:05, Don Hatch wrote:
>
> 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.

How is this more difficult than what you're already doing, manually 
rolling back to the previous version?

We're talking about a one-time one-line change to your .bash_profile:

     export RCS_MEM_LIMIT=10240

That will let you have 10 MiB diffs.

I tried it, and it does indeed allow your RUNME script to finish 
successfully.

> (I lost a significant amount when I hit the bug).

I assume you're talking about the record of changes between your last 
backup and the current version.  The last backup should be pretty 
recent, so your current version shouldn't be too far different from it.

> Would it be possible to simply declare 5.8 DOA

The Cygwin package system allows one to mark 5.8-1 as obsolete, but I 
don't know if it can be told "and downgrade to 5.7-11".

> If not, can we make a 5.9 that's identical to 5.7,

If a new Cygwin package had to come out based on 5.7, it would be called 
5.7-12, not 5.9.  GNU rcs 5.9 already exists.  (The current upstream 
release is 5.9.1.)  Cygwin packages generally leave the upstream 
revision numbers unmolested.

--
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