Part of the problem is we seem to randomly experience either an autofs-timeout problem, either related to NFS or to the SCM automount map not being ale to access the database quickly enough.
This sometimes causes SCM operations to fail the first time but work a subsequent repeated time. Unfortunately, I've seen a couple of times now where upon putback - the bridge tries to do a 'hg push', and fails - and doesn't try again (I'll try to modify it to do a retry tomorrow). So the actual 'hg commit' happens - but the push doesn't. What usually happens instead is that upon the next push, it will be pushed then (assuming that one works). This is definitely a problem in our SCM environment and we're looking into it.. Hope that explanation made sense... cheers, steve On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 06:02:37PM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:12:11AM -0700, Stephen Lau wrote: > > > Is it possible you're getting a mail delay? > > I am, at least. It's quite variable. Most of the time, the messages come > in within five to ten minutes after putback (which is still quite bad). > But, for instance, Bill's putback yesterday didn't register on onnv-notify > until this afternoon -- 22 hours and 30 minutes after the putback happened > internally. I've attached my copy of Bill's message for reference. > > I'm not sure where the problem was there. The mail appears to have been > sent only(!) twelve minutes before it arrived, with the bulk of that delay > being between the last mailserver in the opensolaris.org domain and the > first in the sun.com domain (so maybe others didn't have that particular > delay). This would point to it taking a long time for the mirror to have > happened. > > I'll note that the notification for Darren's putback this afternoon to a > minute and ten seconds to make it to me once it was sent, so the twelve > minutes for Bill's putback wasn't just clock skew. (The time for the > mirror to run, assuming that there's no skew, was about another minute and > ten seconds.) > > As gatekeeper I've generally tried to stay very on top of putbacks as they > come through, often checking who's on the gate machine and what they're > doing. I probably won't need to be nearly so proactive once we have > stronger pre-putback checking, but I still feel that timely notifications > are going to be very important, and preserving ordering will be pretty > critical, too, when it comes to incremental builds. > > Perhaps I just have to relax a bit? :) > > Danek > Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:33:55 -0700 (PDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: 6485375 in same process group, > parent set child as process group lead should succeed > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Author: kucharsk > Repository: /hg/onnv/onnv-gate > Revision: 059923cf64160e6cbcf39a150fcf682d762e1cfa > Log message: > 6485375 in same process group, parent set child as process group lead should > succeed > 6485379 setpgid should follow man page to set errno > > Files: > update: usr/src/lib/brand/lx/lx_brand/common/pgrp.c > _______________________________________________ > onnv-notify mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/onnv-notify -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
