On Nov 24, 2007 1:43 PM, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Somebody was asking why replica sucks?
It's a bug in a shell script, which caused sources to look like some files went away and then got recreated. This happens occasionally if the replica update programs that run at Bell Labs get interrupted or the sources disk fills. It doesn't cause data loss, scary though it may look. In this case, replica actually recreates all the files it deletes, and it refuses to delete any file that had been locally modified, so no information would have been lost. (I tested this earlier today on my own system.) I assume that your vague references to replica destroying people's systems is in fact referring to earlier times that this kind of sequence has happened. Again, replica won't touch any file that it didn't create and it also won't delete any file that has been changed since replica put it there. I really don't expect very much of you, Uriel, but I didn't expect FUDmongering. For what it's worth, I made some changes to pull today to eliminate spurious warnings about "locally modified" files in the case where the local file and the sources copy are identical. This avoids conflicts in the common case where one does 9fs sources cp /n/sources/plan9/some/file /some/file and then later run "pull" to update your system. It also avoids conflicts in the common case where you make a local change, submit a patch, the patch gets installed, and then pull wants to propagate your change back down from sources to your local machine. I also changed pull to ignore deletions if the supposedly-deleted file has been recreated. This will make pull skip over a sequence of "delete then recreate" entries in the log. Russ
