From 5fcd8e8693bf9919dfd644a37942a96da890bd01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:28:28 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] followup --- ...t_6_e8ec7b1fbbb81d61d06a7def61b06354._comment | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/how_to_disaster_recovery/comment_6_e8ec7b1fbbb81d61d06a7def61b06354._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/how_to_disaster_recovery/comment_6_e8ec7b1fbbb81d61d06a7def61b06354._comment b/doc/forum/how_to_disaster_recovery/comment_6_e8ec7b1fbbb81d61d06a7def61b06354._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..425558b254 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/how_to_disaster_recovery/comment_6_e8ec7b1fbbb81d61d06a7def61b06354._comment @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 6""" + date="2016-10-18T15:27:05Z" + content=""" +Another user reported the same problem. Their repo indeed had a tree object +that contained two items with the same name. In this case, two trees, +with different contents. + + 040000 tree cd854aba649cee8855ec72579f4c98100471f7cf Dokument + 040000 tree 1ae499997746c8e976cf02edc2276532978dafc5 Dokument + +This user had been using adjusted branches, which would be my lead suspect. + +Original reporter, did you use git-annex's adjusted branches feature. +"""]] -- 2.30.2