>>>>> "Dave" == David Marker <David.Marker at sun.com> writes:
Dave> About the only way out of this mess I can think of is this: Dave> last pretxnchangegroup sends eamil to some user on the gate Dave> with the previous tip node hash and the new tip node hash. Dave> that user or something in /etc/mail.aliases tests to see if Dave> the new tip reported made it into the gate (after some Dave> acceptible delay to make sure it isn't in the process of being Dave> rolled back). If yes it runs all the hooks I had planned on Dave> running in changegroup hooks. I guess this would be okay. Whatever acts on the email should probably be queue-based, rather than just forking off a new process to handle the request. Either that or the hooks need to be coded so that if there are multiple instances running they don't interfere with each other. But processing the putbacks in order seems less prone to accidental breakage. I assume that the push to the clone (pull from the gate?) will use "-r new_tip_hash". mike
