On 15-03-2005 12:26, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache has quite a few of infra issues, and the board is aware. I'll
add that some of those are more pressing than gump's needs.
No doubt.
So don't complain too much :-D
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Adam R. B. Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[RT: I wonder if we could even overlay runs, having them use the
same working areas/everything. If they clean up (via sync) before
they run, I wonder where the harm might be.]
If they overlap in time, the later will sync away
On 14-03-2005 14:53, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW: Are we looking for a free-j run/workspace?
I don't think so.
Me neither.
Do we need to make room for that?
I'll raise the disk space issue in my next board report and will give
infrstrastructure and board a heads-up that
P.P.S. This was the df info prior to starting this change. Let's see where
we end up after a day or so.
86% /home
65% /usr
65% /home
45% /usr
Adam
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
All,
I've created: /.../gump/staging (for shared CVS|SVN staging)
I've updated /.../gump/[test|kaffe|jdk15]/gump/metadata/brutus.xml to point
to above.
I've delete:/.../gump/[test|kaffe|jdk15]/workspace/cvs.
Since these three runs use the trunk of SVN, the change I added last week
(to [on
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Adam Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since these three runs use the trunk of SVN, the change I added last
week (to [on posix] file lock the module prior to a CVS|SVN update)
ought be in effect.
I think the sync step needs to lock the directories as well, since
otherwise the
