I use replica for several tasks besides usual system update, in several different ways. It (applylog) behaves very reliably when changes go to a tree hosted by a native plan9 fs (fossil in my case), yet many glitches may arise (like those reported by Paul) if the destination is a *nix tree over 9P (in my case it is u9fs on AIX). Problems aren't with replica but with 9P servers on *nix.
I saw replica failing on older 9vx #Z but it went just fine when I tried with fresh libvx32 pull some months ago. - Yaroslav 2010/9/11 Eric Van Hensbergen <eri...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:32 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> > wrote: >>> > What am I doing wrong? >>> >>> I would argue that, while it is quite cool in principle, replica is >>> the wrong way to solve the source distribution problem. I gave up on >>> replica a year ago because I got tired of the kinds of problems you're >>> having. >> >> while some much-needed patches have been slow in >> being applied, i don't think bugs (or a broken 9vx #Z) >> imply that replica is just wrong way to replicate changes >> to sources. >> > > While that may be true, my experiences with replica have been pretty > dreadful. I'm just not smart enough to use it properly I guess. The > other aspect with using it with 9vx is that it gives me easy rollbacks > since my 9vx bits on my mac aren't currently protected by Venti. > > -eric > >
