From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32289 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2015 22:51:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 32230 invoked by uid 89); 12 Feb 2015 22:51:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wi0-f181.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f181.google.com) (209.85.212.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:51:43 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r20so8147803wiv.2 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:51:40 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.82.129 with SMTP id i1mr6247488wiy.1.1423781500366; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.108] (p5B29926E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.41.146.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id eg10sm3486340wib.5.2015.02.12.14.51.39 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:51:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54DD2E69.40907@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:51:00 -0000 From: Marco Atzeri User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [RFC] cygport upload References: <1423780937.12472.183.camel@cygwin.com> In-Reply-To: <1423780937.12472.183.camel@cygwin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 On 2/12/2015 11:42 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > I have created an upload branch in cygport git based on master with > Andrew's upload work for further testing. > > I'm still undecided on $arch/!ready vs. $arch/release/$package/!ready. > Thoughts? $arch/release/$package/!ready should avoid the "unlikely" case when upload of a second package is running but a first package is in transfer from stage to main area. > -- > Yaakov Marco