On 12 March 2010 18:13, bernij <email address hidden> wrote:
> I had [what looks like] a very similar/same issue with 2.1.0, see bug
> 537127.
>
> Normal operation could be recovered, without damage to the tree, by removing both directories:
> .bzr/branch/lock/held
> .bzr/checkout/lock/held
Yes, that sounds like the same bug.
> I noticed that:
> - had tried removing the two held directories one at a time, but got traceback until both where removed
That makes sense.
> - bzr info was working, although it suggested everything was fine ... should it mention the stale held directories? and possibly suggest to remove them if appropriate?
I think there's a separate bug asking that info should tell you about
held locks.
> - bzr break-lock also resulted in a traceback
That should be fixed too.
By the way, do you know anything about the actions leading up to this
point? Was a previous command interrupted by a network outage or
crash?
On 12 March 2010 18:13, bernij <email address hidden> wrote: lock/held lock/held
> I had [what looks like] a very similar/same issue with 2.1.0, see bug
> 537127.
>
> Normal operation could be recovered, without damage to the tree, by removing both directories:
> .bzr/branch/
> .bzr/checkout/
Yes, that sounds like the same bug.
> I noticed that:
> - had tried removing the two held directories one at a time, but got traceback until both where removed
That makes sense.
> - bzr info was working, although it suggested everything was fine ... should it mention the stale held directories? and possibly suggest to remove them if appropriate?
I think there's a separate bug asking that info should tell you about
held locks.
> - bzr break-lock also resulted in a traceback
That should be fixed too.
By the way, do you know anything about the actions leading up to this
point? Was a previous command interrupted by a network outage or
crash?
-- launchpad. net/~mbp/>
Martin <http://