On 05/13/2014 10:06 AM, csn233 wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Alex Rousskov
> <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
>
>> This assertion is being tracked as misnamed bug 3279 (at least). Posting
>> a backtrace from the assertion there may help. If you do that, please
>> indicate what cache_dir store module(s) you are using.
>
> I'm getting quite a few of these in 3.3.12, with aufs.
>
> Can you clarify why it's misnamed?
Bugzilla entry #3279 is currently about the store.cc isEmpty() assertion
but is named "HTTP reply without Date". Thus, the name of the bug report
does not match what is being discussed in that bug report (which is not
the fault of the person who created that bug report!). I would not have
mentioned the naming problem, but was worried that folks will read the
bug title and think it does not apply to them.
Perhaps "misnamed" was not the best adjective to use (the bug was
initially named correctly).
> Or suggest any workarounds?
Sorry, I have not worked on that bug and do not have any specific
suggestions other than upgrading to test with v3.4 and/or trunk (neither
may fix the bug but might raise the amount of attention it gets).
HTH,
Alex.
Received on Tue May 13 2014 - 19:00:58 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 14 2014 - 12:00:05 MDT