gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: Gump Sync
Date Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:27:04 GMT
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Adam R. B. Jack <> wrote:

> I do think we need our own rsync, but it is good to know of gotcha
> like this prior to writing it.

Quite possible.  In particular we don't need rsync but just sync.

> Do we need/want the .cvsignore functionality?

I don't really think so.

I just now looked into my again and we don't use -C.  Now you
have me extra puzzled, since it behaves exactly as if the switch was
enabled (and I don't think -a includes -C).

Anyway, we should use a complete sync without any excludes IMHO.

> I suspect we wish to migrate a directory based off existence and
> timestamp, but not contents (we ought rely upon timestamps, no?).

This will probably be good enough for us.

> What to do in case of failure? Just bail at time of issue, or ought
> we attempt to unwind our changes [not likely].

For our purpose a failure isn't as dramatic as for say mirrors.
Making big noise is warranted, but the orginal contents are still
there, so I wouldn't invest too much time into rollback support.

> Sync is likely to get hit with disk full, since many of the other
> aspects of Gump are change in place.

Sync deletes the previous build results, so I think it's less likely
to be hit by disk space issues than the actual build process.

> Ought we keep a track of all we do, so we can report upon that for
> users?  [We capture output of CVS/SVN which ought be the same, but
> it might be nice for us to do similarly.]

Some kind of human readable lock would be nice.

> Ought we design this via the Wiki?

Why not?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message