[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> However I'm very interested in this comment:
>
> lj> If everyone is doing update, they're read locks which are sharable, so
> lj> there shouldn't be any significant contention.
>
> I've notice I ALWAYS get this "waiting for lock" type message.
> I've always had just a single file being commited at a time.
Commits are write locks that aren't sharable.
> ...oh dear as I type this I'm wondering if I've got that & in the right
> place. Was the
> intent of this 'magic rune' to allow the one process to sleep while the
> original did something?
> (with locks)
Exactly. The parent CVS process has the repository directories locked
while the loginfo commands are running. The example starts a background
command and then ends, allowing the current CVS command to complete and
release all the locks. The background command sleeps for a while to
allow that to happen and then does the update. The sleep in your script
is completely ineffective.
-Larry Jones
How am I supposed to learn surgery if I can't dissect anything? -- Calvin
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
