On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:27:44AM -0800, Jamie Bowden wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Kirk Strauser wrote: > > > At 2004-01-09T20:19:41Z, Jamie Bowden <ragnar_at_sysabend.org> writes: > > > > I got a clean build after re-cvsuping (looks like I picked up 3 more > > > file changes or so, at least one to the tcp bits). This is the first > > > time my multiple cvsup system has failed me, guess I'll increase the > > > sleep time between. > > > Out of curiosity, why would multiple syncs be better than just one? > > Wouldn't the final sync be the same whether you'd done several before it > > or not? > > Not based on experience. I always do multiple cvsups with a timed sleep > between until I get two in a row that don't checkout new, modify, or > remove existing files. Usually three is sufficicient; the first updates > my local source and the second and third confirm that I didn't checkout > during the middle of a commit. Every now and then, I'll have to do a > fourth as the second will modify a few more files. This only deals with one of the two possiable problems. This problem is that you update while the cvsup server you are talking to is updating. This does nothing about the problem where the server you are updating from updates while cvsup-master is updating from repoman[0]. There's nothing to be done about that case since the server won't update more then once an hour. -- Brooks [0] There's also the problme where cvsup-master updates in the middle of a commit, but from the user's perspective, there's no way to tell that from the previous case. -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:37 UTC