Redirecting here from mailman-checkins...
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 03:30, Thomas Wouters wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:02:29PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 19:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Fix another of Peer's annoying bugs: somehow his next_request_id ended up > > > lower than the highest entry in the list config.db, so the assertion was > > > being triggered. We can just deal with the problem instead. > > > Very strange! Does this (and Peer's other problems) make us question > > the integrity of the LockFile algorithm? > > Yes, I'm going to setup a LockFile stresstest when I get a moment (which > will probably not be in the next three weeks, unfortunately.) Note that at the bottom of LockFile.py there's an attempt at a stress test. It would be good to code review this to make sure it's testing what we think it should test and what it ought to test <wink>. It's also never been really run in an NFS environment. I don't know if Peer's using NFS, but if so that would be the first place I'd suspect. -Barry _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers