On 2018-10-04 18:05, Cédric Krier wrote:
> On 2018-09-29 11:42, Cédric Krier wrote:
> > On 2018-09-23 22:42, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Yes, I could add process timeouts. But small timeouts are going to
> > > break the occasional necessity of cloning big repos, and big timeouts
> > > are going to
On 2018-09-29 11:42, Cédric Krier wrote:
> On 2018-09-23 22:42, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Yes, I could add process timeouts. But small timeouts are going to
> > break the occasional necessity of cloning big repos, and big timeouts
> > are going to make little difference when Mercurial starts
On 2018-09-23 22:42, Michał Górny wrote:
> Yes, I could add process timeouts. But small timeouts are going to
> break the occasional necessity of cloning big repos, and big timeouts
> are going to make little difference when Mercurial starts hanging again.
>
> If someone really cares about this
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 23:44 -0400, desultory wrote:
> On 09/27/18 10:21, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 01:50 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:59:46 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm against dumb timeouts. Good timeout = die if nothing
On 09/27/18 10:21, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 01:50 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:59:46 +0200
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>>> I'm against dumb timeouts. Good timeout = die if nothing happens for T.
>>> Bad timeout = die if process doesn't finish for T (yet
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 01:50 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:59:46 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > I'm against dumb timeouts. Good timeout = die if nothing happens for T.
> > Bad timeout = die if process doesn't finish for T (yet it may still be
> > doing something).
>
>
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:59:46 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> I'm against dumb timeouts. Good timeout = die if nothing happens for T.
> Bad timeout = die if process doesn't finish for T (yet it may still be
> doing something).
Could you perhaps adjust it so that when the timeout limit is
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 10:42 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> 2. Mercurial is buggy and maintaining support for those repos is PITA.
>
As a former Mercurial maintainer, I'm very skeptical of claims that
Mercurial is that buggy or generally less well-maintained than Git. Still,
reality is that Gentoo
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 18:46 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:42 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone.
> >
> > I'd like to ask Gentoo repository owners to switch off Mercurial
> > and remove all Mercurial repositories from repositories.xml. There are
> > two reasons
Michał Górny writes:
> If you noticed that Gentoo repository mirrors did not update for 10
> hours a few days ago -- Mercurial was the reason. It is very fragile,
> and if some server chokes during sync, it hangs the whole process until
> somebody (which means me) kills it. And it's not the
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:42 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> I'd like to ask Gentoo repository owners to switch off Mercurial
> and remove all Mercurial repositories from repositories.xml. There are
> two reasons for that:
>
> 1. Portage does not support syncing from Mercurial repos,
Hi, everyone.
I'd like to ask Gentoo repository owners to switch off Mercurial
and remove all Mercurial repositories from repositories.xml. There are
two reasons for that:
1. Portage does not support syncing from Mercurial repos, and needs to
use external tools (e.g. layman) for that.
2.
12 matches
Mail list logo
