[Capistrano] connection failed for: 10.40.5.35 (Errno::EBADF: Bad file descriptor - connect(2)
hi all,
i have installed capistrano successfully into my system. I
have capfied the application and written the script deply.rb file like
this:-
set :application, "saurx"
set :repository, "http://10.40.0.112/HCM/#{application}";
role :app, "10.40.5.35"
role :web, "10.40.5.35"
role :db, "10.40.5.35", :primary => true
set :user, "ravikumar"
set :deploy_to, "D:\backup"
set :port_number, "3000"
namespace :deploy do
task :start, :roles => :app do
run "cd #{deploy_to}; ruby script/server webrick -p 3000"
end
after "deploy:update_code", :link_production_db
end
# database.yml task
desc "Link in the production database.yml"
task :link_production_db do
run "ln -nfs #{deploy_to}\shared\config\database.yml #{release_path}/
config/database.yml"
end
But after executing cap deploy:setup in comman prompt .its showing the
error "connection failed for: 10.40.5.35 (Errno::EBADF: Bad file
descriptor - connect(2)" . Please tell me the soultion
thanks in advance
Ravikumar
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Capistrano] Re: mercurial checkouts
this functionality exists in mercurial via the hg archive command. the problem is that this command does not support this action from remote repositories. there are workarounds but they are different depending on which remote protocol you are using (ssh, http, https etc etc).. Anyways I considered implementing this in the mercurial plugin but it is a hack at best and it is something that really should be fixed in mercurial, not in cap. If you use the remote_cache deploy method this is very fast. If your really worried about the metadata simply add a hook to update_code that deletes .hg in the directory. Space is cheap, programming time is expensive, that was my rationale :) Fix mercurial not cap! Matthew Elder Technical Lead 661-343-7955 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sep 22, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Izidor Jerebic wrote: >> latest --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Capistrano] Re: [ANN] Capistrano 2.1 Preview #1
Tim Lucas wrote: >> If you still needed the flexibility of specifying local auth details >> maybe you could have #query_revision use a #local_authentication >> which drew from two local-only vars: :scm_local_username >> and :scm_local_password ? > > Would that suffice? > If it would default to scm_username and scm_password yes. I would rather see a :skip_local_scm_auth variable with defaults to false. Keep the default behaviour as it was. Jonathan -- Jonathan Weiss http://blog.innerewut.de --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Capistrano] Re: [ANN] Capistrano 2.1 Preview #1
I believe I am just going to put the --password switch back in. It is known to work in all relevant cases, and doesn't overcomplicate the code. If security concerns you, it's not the end of the world: it would be relatively straightforward to subclass the Subversion module and add your own preferred behavior there. - Jamis On 9/23/07, Tim Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 22/09/2007, at 11:25 PM, Jonathan Weiss wrote: > > > Tim Lucas wrote: > >> How about simply removing #authentication from the #query_revision > >> svn command args? > > > > I need local auth as there are cases where you do not have an auth > > cache > > (do not want to have one), best example ist Webistrano. > > What about my suggestion from that same email? > > > If you still needed the flexibility of specifying local auth details > > maybe you could have #query_revision use a #local_authentication > > which drew from two local-only vars: :scm_local_username > > and :scm_local_password ? > > Would that suffice? > > -- tim > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Capistrano] Re: [ANN] Capistrano 2.1 Preview #1
On 22/09/2007, at 11:25 PM, Jonathan Weiss wrote: > Tim Lucas wrote: >> How about simply removing #authentication from the #query_revision >> svn command args? > > I need local auth as there are cases where you do not have an auth > cache > (do not want to have one), best example ist Webistrano. What about my suggestion from that same email? > If you still needed the flexibility of specifying local auth details > maybe you could have #query_revision use a #local_authentication > which drew from two local-only vars: :scm_local_username > and :scm_local_password ? Would that suffice? -- tim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
