On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:54:13PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > Neil Mitchell wrote: > >Hi > > > >>> The disadvantage is that you need quite a bit of disk space, and that > >>> if a buildbot is dead for a long time the "works" tree may get quite > >>> old. > >> > >>I wondered about this too, but I was worrying about ensuring atomicity > >>during > >>the push, especially since we have multiple repos. Maybe it's not a > >>serious > >>problem. > > > >The push from active to works? My thought was that each buildbot would > >have its own pair of repos, so you don't run into this problem. > > The "works" repo has to be public (otherwise nobody can use it), and hence > the push has to be atomic with respect to pulls. I was thinking in terms > of having the "works" repos on darcs.haskell.org, but of course they could > be local to the builder if you have a way of exporting them.
mv ~/public/works ~/public/works.locked (cd build/repo1; darcs push ~/public/works.locked/repo1) (cd build/repo2; darcs push ~/public/works.locked/repo2) (cd build/repo3; darcs push ~/public/works.locked/repo3) mv ~/public/works.locked ~/public/works Directory renames are atomic on *NIX. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
