From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12492 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2014 16:31:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 12481 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jan 2014 16:31:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f179.google.com) (209.85.214.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:31:17 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wo20so218475obc.10 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:31:15 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.60.65.101 with SMTP id w5mr2406528oes.0.1389976275628; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:31:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.37.97 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:30:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140117161333.GA59772@tishler.net> References: <20140116061906.GA1992@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20140116085431.GB26205@calimero.vinschen.de> <20140117161333.GA59772@tishler.net> From: David Boyce Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Add retry logic to rebaseall To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 Jason, On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jason Tishler wrote: > AFAICT, there is a race condition issue with the proposed functionality. > David's build servers could be quiescent when the check for running > processes is performed, but they could restart before the rebase is > finished. I realize the window is very small, but it is nevertheless > nonzero, so the rebase could still fail. I don't think race condition is the right phrase here. This is the exact same situation faced by the existing rebaseall functionality; it knows there are no Cygwin processes running at start time but any process could start between then and end time. I agree there's a window where things could go wrong, but this feature doesn't worsen it. Closing that window is an orthogonal effort, IMHO; the new flag isn't called --make-sure-the-rebase-works-dammit. > There are also formatting issues with the patch. For example, the > addition of the while loop requires lines to be shifted to the right. > I know rebaseall unfortunately has a mixture of tabs and spaces, but > after applying the patch some lines are not indented correctly. I had a paragraph about that in the original email which got rejected due to "spam score too high" so I cut the text down for the second try and ended up losing that part. Yes, the original has a mix of tabs and spaces and my editor might be configured differently from yours, so I made the patch using "diff -u -w". That may have been a mistake; I'm happy to clean it up if asked. > IMO, the proposed functionality is very specialized and doesn't seem to > be generally applicable. This functionality could also be implemented > (by the few who need it) as a very simple wrapper script that calls > rebaseall until is succeeds. This approach would also workaround the > race condition. How so? The behavior and risk factors would be identical as far as I can see. David -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple