AssertionError when using older smart servers (upstream bug #528041)

Bug #583769 reported by Ralf Schulze on 2010-05-21
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
bzr (Ubuntu)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: bzr

There is a nasty bug in the current bzr package 2.1.1-1 in Lucid, when trying to pull, checkout, etc. branches from older bzr smart servers, which makes 'bzr' nearly useless for me.

----
(rschulze@marvin)~/hdtv/trunk % bzr pull
Using saved parent location: bzr://xxx.xxx.xxx-xxx.xxx/hdtv/
Server does not understand Bazaar network protocol 3, reconnecting. (Upgrade the server to avoid this.)
bzr: ERROR: exceptions.AssertionError: _remember_remote_is_before((2, 1)) called, but _remember_remote_is_before((1, 6)) was called previously.

*** Bazaar has encountered an internal error. This probably indicates a
    bug in Bazaar. You can help us fix it by filing a bug report at
        https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+filebug
    attaching the crash file
        /home/rschulze/.cache/crash/bzr-20100521094803-32545.crash
    and including a description of the problem.

    The crash file is plain text and you can inspect or edit it to remove
    private information
---

This bug is fixed in bzr development versions (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/528041) but not yet available in Ubuntu Lucid.

Attached are the corresponding patches from upstream, adjusted to the Ubuntu package 2.1.1-1.

Ralf Schulze (ralf-schulze) wrote :
summary: - Assertion Error when using older smart severs (upstream bug #528041)
+ AssertionError when using older smart servers (upstream bug #528041)
Andrew Bennetts (spiv) wrote :

Your adjusted patch drops the test for the bug and NEWS entries. Not a huge deal but it might be better to keep the divergence minimal.

Alternatively it might be simpler and better to package the current lp:bzr/2.1 branch. The final 2.1.2 is likely to be very close the current state of that branch, and it has other valuable fixes (e.g. #559436 and #556940) apart from just this one.

Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote :

Indeed; we'll be doing an SRU of 2.1.2; there is no harm in getting this patch in, but 2.1.2 is not far away, and fixes many issues.

Martin Pool (mbp) wrote :

Let's not have a separate bug for this, but rather ask for an SRU of the existing bug.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers