[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(no subject)

From: root
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:19:56 -0400

>From address@hidden  Thu Feb 15 03:21:37 2001
>Return-Path: <address@hidden>
Received: from ( [])
        by (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id 
        for <address@hidden>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:21:35 +0900
Received: from localhost ([]
        by with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
        id 14T6VH-0007QS-00; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:18:11 -0500
Received: from [] (
        by with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
        id 14T6TD-0006S7-00
        for <address@hidden>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:16:03 -0500
Received: (from address@hidden)
        by (8.11.2/8.9.3) id f1EIG2h23712;
        Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:16:02 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: laine set sender to address@hidden 
using -f
To: address@hidden
From: address@hidden (Laine Stump)
Subject: Re: Timestamp race avoidance in do_update()
References: <address@hidden>
In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: address@hidden
Errors-To: address@hidden
X-BeenThere: address@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Subscribe: <>,
List-Id: Announcements and discussions for the CVS version control system 
List-Unsubscribe: <>,
List-Archive: <>
Date: 14 Feb 2001 13:16:02 -0500
Status: O
Content-Length: 1782
Lines: 37

BTW - on the subject of this sleep, I've found that it *greatly*
improves the amount of time it takes a rather long script to run if I
remove the sleep in the client. I know that's dangerous and stupid in
the general case, but in my specific case it doesn't cause any harm.

What I'm wondering is if we could change the "sleep(1); to be a
usleep(200) in a while loop instead. This should trim 1/2 a second
from each invocation of commit, on average, which can be quite a lot
when you're talking about several thousand files with dozens of
revisions for each...

address@hidden (Larry Jones) writes:

> Brad Chisholm writes:
> > 
> > Just to make sure I understand, CVS is sleeping to ensure that any post-CVS
> > process which might modify the file must also change the timestamp.  This
> > is necessary, because the CVS client relies on the timestamp to determine
> > whether a file has been modified.  (i.e. if the current timestamp of the
> > file matches the timestamp stored in the Entries file, then the client
> > will consider the file unchanged, even if the contents have actually 
> > changed).
> Exactly.  As I said in the thread you quoted, you should send all of the
> file information first and then a single update command, not a separate
> update command for each file.  Also, the current development version no
> longer sleeps when in server mode; it is up to the client to do it
> instead.
> -Larry Jones
> Monopoly is more fun when you make your own Chance cards. -- Calvin
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden

Info-cvs mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]