Community
Participate
Working Groups
In 3.1RC2, (but also in 3.1M6) I have a project cvs-shared with a fairly large set of temp files under the build subfolder. When doing a synchronize on the project, it can take forever to calc the state, despite the build folder is in the comitted .cvsignore. It looks like the synchronization cheks for every single file (several hundreds of them) that are under the build folder, even if they are ignored. And ghost deleted resources are still being synchronized. *Ghost deleted resources: The progress views shows a task : Updating CVS workspace, and a message "calculating synchronization state for ...." pointing to resources which: - used to be under the project and were in .cvsignore at the time, - have been since deleted from the project - the .cvsignore has been updated and properly committed - have never been committed The project has been both refreshed and cleaned, and Eclipse started with -clean Further synchronizations in the same session do not go through this lengthy calculation on ghost resources again. But restarting Eclipse and launching a synchronization re-triggers that synchro. Also, the fact that the synchro is pinned or not does not have any effect. Even when starting with a clean workspace, and importing the project, ghost deleted resources are being synchronized. * Attmpting synchro on cvsignored resources Only when starting with a clean the eclipse/configuration, and a new workspace, there is always an attempt to synchronize cvsignored resources, but at least cleaning the configuration takes care of removing the sync on ghost deleted resources. When the ignored folders (ie some build folder) contains a large number of files, this can take several minutes. An easy way to reproduce the bug: - create some project that is cvs shared - create some folder with many files that is cvs ignored - sync and check the progress view - restart, sync
This is a known issue. We couldn't fix it for 3.1 as it requires new API and we were past the API deadline when we discovered it.
*** Bug 105620 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
We didn't have time to address this in 3.3.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.