From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14334 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2001 20:16:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14280 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2001 20:15:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rti19.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2001 20:15:56 -0000 Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by mel-rti19.wanadoo.fr; 4 Dec 2001 21:15:46 +0100 Received: from ulmo.localdomain (193.251.50.176) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 4 Dec 2001 21:13:56 +0100 Received: (from guerby@localhost) by ulmo.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB4K6YG30195; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:06:34 +0100 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200112042006.fB4K6YG30195@ulmo.localdomain> X-Authentication-Warning: ulmo.localdomain: guerby set sender to guerby@acm.org using -f From: To: jsm28@cam.ac.uk CC: schwab@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: (jsm28@cam.ac.uk) Subject: Re: gcc-ss-20011203 is now available Reply-to: guerby@acm.org References: X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 > In the middle of a series of 19 checkins, you mean May be the snapshot script could use a stable checkout, if the script is using contrib/gcc_build checkout I can propose a patch to implement a stable-checkout option. Algorithm: checkout for I in 1 .. MAX loop wait X update exit when no files updated end loop With X being something like 10 or 15 minutes, it should be *very* unlikely to get something inconsistent due to a serie of checkins, and it would probably also survive an ooops commit / revert cycle, at the cost of some wait. MAX could be set so that X * MAX < time between automatic run / 2. -- Laurent Guerby