Those are the files that the config record cannot find. Of course, if we start
checking in the object files, well, talk about a bloated source pool...
"Masterson, David" wrote:
> Are you also checking in the intermediate files (as in *.o, etc.)? If not,
> these might be the files that the configuration record cannot find...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Mackillip [mailto:mmackill@aud.alcatel.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 11:12 AM
> To: Masterson, David; Wolfgang Laun; ClearCase User Group
> Subject: Re: [cciug] config record errors
>
> All,
>
> Let me have a shot at this again, and I apologize for any confusion that I
> might
> have caused. (Part of the confusion on my behalf is that I am not a CM
> person; I
> am more on the system administration side of the house:)
>
> Our DO is checked in, say an executable and/or some of the related
> libraries. The
> checked in DO has it's config record intact.
>
> Now we want to do a catcr on that config record, recursively (i.e. -flat ).
> This
> wants to look at all the siblings that were generated in putting together
> the
> checkedin DO. It is the siblings that were not found, and therefor the error
> messages.
>
> Hopefully that is more in keeping with you have been thinking, Dave.
>
> And, I hope that makes more sense.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
>
> Scott Mackillip wrote:
>
> > No, as I understand it (maybe someone at Rational could correct me if I'm
> > wrong), a DO and a DOV (or checked-in DO) are two seperate things. Thus
> they
> > have their own data containers, their own config records, etc.
> >
> > I might be completely off base here, but the fact remains that the
> individual
> > was trying to do a catcr -flat -ci "DOV file name". However the config
> records
> > could not be found. Somehow they had been removed, and mostlikely not
> > intentionly by any individual.
> >
> > What other explanation is there?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > "Masterson, David" wrote:
> >
> > > Am I reading what you're saying here correctly? Are you saying that
> Derived
> > > Object Versions (DOVs or checked-in derived objects) will have there
> > > reference count set to zero when all views that reference them are
> removed
> > > like ordinary Derived Objects? I thought, since it is checked-in, the
> VOB
> > > would maintain one reference to the DO and, thus, DOVs would not be
> > > scrubbed. If what you're saying is true, I'll have to rethink my
> process...
> > > :-\
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott Mackillip [mailto:mmackill@aud.alcatel.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 5:44 AM
> > > To: Wolfgang Laun; ClearCase User Group
> > > Subject: Re: [cciug] config record errors
> > >
> > > Wolfgang,
> > >
> > > Right you are!
> > >
> > > Turns out that the files indeed were checked-in derived objects. The
> most
> > > likely scenario is that the reference count dropped to zero, so the
> original
> > > DO's were removed, even though it was checked in (creating a different,
> new
> > > data container, etc. within the VOB).
> > >
> > > So, with the scrubber and vob_scrubber removing the DO's, the CR's were
> > > removed, too.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> > >
> > > > Scott,
> > > >
> > > > I have to guess: this error happens when you do some sort of recursive
> > > > catcr command (-recurs, -flat, etc),
> > > > right?
> > > >
> > > > If so, please go and look at the basic config records of MIFS.elf,
> > > > MIFS.incr, SYNC.elf and search for the PLAT_* file names reported as
> > > > missing. I'd say they are derived objects (or DO versions). They are
> > > > missing because they have been rm'ed or mv'ed (is the view still
> > > > there?) after the build (or, in the DO version case, rmelem'ed).
> > > >
> > > > HTH - or we'd need more info.
> > > > -Wolfgang
> > > >
> > > > Scott Mackillip wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am coming across an unusual error message; one that has a single
> entry
> > > > > in the CCIUG archives:
> > > > >
> > > > > cleartool: Error: Unable to fetch config record for "PLAT_IFS.incr".
> > > > > Error was detected in config record for target "MIFS.elf" built in
> view
> > > > > "daphne:/home/projects/wintjr_dev_r2.vws".
> > > > > cleartool: Error: Unable to fetch config record for "PLAT_IFS.incr".
> > > > > Error was detected in config record for target "MIFS.incr" built in
> view
> > > > > "daphne:/home/projects/wintjr_dev_r2.vws".
> > > > > cleartool: Error: Unable to fetch config record for
> "PLAT_SYNC.incr".
> > > > > Error was detected in config record for target "SYNC.elf" built in
> view
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone else seen this before? I thought that there might be
> problems
> > > > > with the VOB, so I ran checkvob on the vob in question, but there
> were
> > > > > no reported errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing I did notice: I cannot find a reference to the file
> > > > > PLAT_IFS.incr in the VOB no-how, no-way. I tried a find command:
> > > > > ct find . -type f -version '{created_since(1-Jan-1970)}' -name
> > > > > PLAT_IFS.incr -print
> > > > > and nothing came out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anybody have any ideas?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott MacKillip
> > > > > Alcatel-USA
> > > > >
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:22:32 EDT