Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"Object [hash] already has a mark" on pushing #16

Closed
alchemicalhydra opened this issue Sep 9, 2014 · 14 comments
Closed

"Object [hash] already has a mark" on pushing #16

alchemicalhydra opened this issue Sep 9, 2014 · 14 comments
Labels

Comments

@alchemicalhydra
Copy link

This looks similar to felipec/git#48, but I'm getting this on the latest version of standard Git (2.1) and the latest git-remote-hg:

searching for changes
no changes found
error: Object [hash] already has a mark
...(repeated several times with different [hash])...
searching for changes
...(and the push continues normally)...
@felipec felipec added the bug label Jan 31, 2015
@felipec
Copy link
Owner

felipec commented Jan 31, 2015

Do you have a series of steps to reproduce this?

@urkle
Copy link

urkle commented Feb 10, 2015

I am also having this issue hg version 2.4.1 and git 1.8.1.4.. however I can not push changes. as it promptly rejects the change claiming it's a non-fast-forward push? and that my branch is behind,.. however it is not.. it's the same as the remote..

@alchemicalhydra
Copy link
Author

Do you have a series of steps to reproduce this?

On our private repo at work, it happens on just about every push. I'm not sure how I'd go about getting it to be reproducible on a fresh repo, though.

@dfens
Copy link

dfens commented Feb 13, 2015

same here, any solution? git 2.3 hg 2.8.2

@fingolfin
Copy link
Contributor

@dfens to everybody who runs into this: If you have a way to reproduce it, I can look into it. Otherwise, this is just stabbing in the dark :-/

@alchemicalhydra
Copy link
Author

@fingolfin For what it's worth, I'm not using the bridge anymore; I just decided to never work on a Mercurial project again. ;-) More seriously, I think @felipec has abandoned the project; your fork seems to be active, and should probably be the first stop for people trying to get this working.

@fingolfin
Copy link
Contributor

I actually just realized that I found a reproducible example for this... :) See fingolfin#2

@tomxtobin Yeah, it seems this is abandoned -- unfortunely, it still seems to be the number 1 hit on Google for git-remote-hg

@alchemicalhydra
Copy link
Author

@felipec I don't know if you're reading, but any thoughts to giving official blessing to @fingolfin's fork? If you're willing, an official pointer in the README would go a long way. :-)

@sayadyan
Copy link

@fingolfin
I have found test case to reproduce this issue.

  1. Clone big repo. (In my case it contains ~18000 branches)
  2. Add to remote mercurial repo commit in some .
  3. Then make "git fetch" (in my case it takes near 3 hours)
  4. While previous command working open new terminal and make "git fetch origin branches/"
  5. Wait until "git fetch" from 3 will finished.
  6. Add to local git repo commit to .
  7. git push origin
  8. ... error: Object [hash] already has a mark ...

@fingolfin
Copy link
Contributor

@sayadyan Thanks, that is quite helpful. This suggests that at least one source of this bug is a concurrency issue. It might also suggest a way to easily reproduce the issue. E.g. instead of cloning a big repo, one could insert an artificial delay into git-remote-hg, triggered by an environment flag; then start one operation with that flag enabled; and start a second operation without the flag.

But I can't promise I'll get to work on this anytime soon.

@felipec
Copy link
Owner

felipec commented May 17, 2016

Concurrency is not supported. Only one command should be run at a time.

@alchemicalhydra
Copy link
Author

Unfortunately, I may be working on a Mercurial repo in the near future, so I have a renewed interest in seeing this bug fixed. ;-) @felipec, if you're back to working on the project, it's great timing!

For what it's worth, the original issue I reported was not a result of my running concurrent operations.

@felipec
Copy link
Owner

felipec commented May 19, 2016

Yeah, I thought so. The concurrency issue is a different thing.

@felipec felipec removed the waiting label Jun 18, 2019
@felipec
Copy link
Owner

felipec commented Jun 18, 2019

If anybody is still experiencing this, feel free to comment and I'll reopen, in the meantime.

@felipec felipec closed this as completed Jun 18, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants