On 09/22/2010 12:43 PM, Jon Foster wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> Okay; then we should document (today) that when svnsync is used with
>> a 1.6 server, then the admin must ensure that two instances never start
>> at about the same time. (unless external locking is used)
>>
>> Not sure where this would
Daniel wrote:
> Okay; then we should document (today) that when svnsync is used with
> a 1.6 server, then the admin must ensure that two instances never
start
> at about the same time. (unless external locking is used)
>
> Not sure where this would go (the site, the book, the mailing lists..)
We
[ snipping tons of context ... ]
Jon Foster wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 15:56:19 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Unwedging the mirror is not bad; if some commit were replayed twice to
> > the mirror, /then/ I would be worried. :-)
>
> FYI, it *can* replay commits twice to the mirror.
>
> Rea
Hi,
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 15:45:41 +0200:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 03:33:20PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 14:31:58 +0200:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:05:24PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >
Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 15:45:41 +0200:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 03:33:20PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 14:31:58 +0200:
> > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:05:24PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, S
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 03:33:20PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 14:31:58 +0200:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:05:24PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:50:56 +0200:
> > > > How about combining (1) and (3)
Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 14:31:58 +0200:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:05:24PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:50:56 +0200:
> > > How about combining (1) and (3) --- that is, using the old locking mode
> > > (with its known race con
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:05:24PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:50:56 +0200:
> > How about combining (1) and (3) --- that is, using the old locking mode
> > (with its known race condition) but print a warning that the mirror
> > server should be upgra
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:50:56 +0200:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:25:10 +0200:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:49PM +0100, Jon Foster wrote:
> > > So... what do we do if a 1.7 svnsync connects to a <=1.6 mirror server?
> > > Some options are:
> > >
>
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:25:10 +0200:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:49PM +0100, Jon Foster wrote:
> > So... what do we do if a 1.7 svnsync connects to a <=1.6 mirror server?
> > Some options are:
> >
Right now, the code uses option (1).
> > 1) It works like 1.6 - i.e. i
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:49PM +0100, Jon Foster wrote:
> So... what do we do if a 1.7 svnsync connects to a <=1.6 mirror server?
> Some options are:
>
> 1) It works like 1.6 - i.e. it does buggy locking that works most of the
> time, then one day it corrupts the mirror repo.
>
> 2) It runs w
Hi,
svnsync has always had locking, to prevent two svnsync processes from
writing to the same mirror at the same time. (If that happens, then the
mirror repo gets corrupted. You have to either delete the mirror repo
and resync, dump/load it, or restore from backup. Either way, there's
significa
12 matches
Mail list logo
