X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=Buut8Of
	wXzlXLVVj/A8sh/pS7tOAEyjwUxgA0efC9SIaubKJSN3Obo06QF9+biEVRz1TIYo
	1AJxJsk/Pyh/XUekOIY8dsMIuc7Ko4FqN2anPLYEy86Gpt0Lb2JwAVeknrEZ4Umt
	74Pm+vBtpwq14BCxgfx4H8Mb7KS7LG20XgE8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; s=default; bh=mR9759n0g8OfG
	tvqgZIO5mrsfV0=; b=h4KR9ypiW31E+BeDgyLutdAWlNVLSWrvAbmLtYhkYk55s
	P08Ooq9xEgalRWFeNJwHSW/nRfQ5iOYwg/Ug+FQsO9N0PVZYWQQFzs1AgL6jBOXU
	MO5Xzkyu+MbJBnzrum1WVTUYAvZoUrSoajalF0MI8hDc4ZD2w+a0GhThVa968I=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
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
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
In-Reply-To: <20140117161333.GA59772@tishler.net>
References: <CACUHbYNK6e+NrBiNo9RUynqc=F39mLWnizQNFeU-DUSVj0rmeQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20140116061906 DOT GA1992 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20140116085431 DOT GB26205 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20140117161333 DOT GA59772 AT tishler DOT net>
From: David Boyce <dsb AT boyski DOT com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:30:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CACUHbYP9zSQDENbt1tV9WY_jQx5ayxySfTVryt6u6nZAD5u88A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add retry logic to rebaseall
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Jason,

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net> 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