X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B20D1B56C;
	Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:41:24 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 85174-06; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:41:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.171])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1086DD1B528;
	Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:41:14 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from modem-2206.lion.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.168.158]
	helo=[192.168.0.102]) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14)
	id 1Bp8XJ-0003NB-Ig; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:41:13 +0100
Subject: Re: CVS web interface error
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <20040726123416.U68882@ganymede.hub.org>
References: <1090790326.3057.1515.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<18928.1090817823@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1090826834.3054.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<26979.1090851081@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20040726123416.U68882@ganymede.hub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 2nd Quadrant
Message-Id: <1090860054.3054.653.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) 
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:40:54 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200407/1261
X-Sequence-Number: 56822

On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 16:34, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Working on it ... it was a *really* old version, and from pgfoundry, I 
> imagine it has some issues with the newer CVS ... will post once I have a 
> new one in place that appears to work ...
> 
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> Click "download" and it fails consistently with the error:
> >
> > Hm, you're right; I hadn't tried that lately but it does fail for me
> > too.  Weird.  I'd not have thought that "download" would make a
> > different request to CVS than the "revision 1.n" link does ...
> > but those links still work ...
> >
> > I'm betting it's some simple oversight in the cvsweb configuration.
> > Marc?
> >

Not too important to me, and I guess I was the only user.

...only used when need to access code when no laptop, so rarely.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs