In message <[email protected]> on Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:04:29 -0500, Hendrik Boom <[email protected]> said:
hendrik> I don't really see a big difference between the script being hendrik> protected and the separate file being protected. Unless the hendrik> file with the scripts gets to be huge with a lot of stuff hendrik> that doesn't need protection, of course. There's another point, and it's that if needed, a script is easier to upgrade (if need be) if the data is separate. We've been hitting that one a couple of times on code.monotone.ca. hendrik> > There's a little bit more done to check that the monotone server has hendrik> > started correctly. Usher waits for the server to output something and hendrik> > expects the first line to contain "beginning service". If that hendrik> > doesn't happen, it will consider the fork a failure, hence the error hendrik> > message. Maybe there should be a little bit more text explaining that hendrik> > one might get more answers from the appropriate log... hendrik> hendrik> Maybe the message should say that the monotone server failed hendrik> to start up correctly. That, after all, seems to be what's hendrik> being tested. When I saw the message that the fork failed, I hendrik> immediately started looking for ways that tthe executable hendrik> file 'mtn' might not be there or have the wrong permissions, hendrik> etc. etc. It's clearly better to look in the log file. If mtn can't be started, it will say "execvp failed". But you make a point here, that some of the messages are a bit cryptic and really require that you know usher by source... It could be smart to make sure they're are a little bit more verbose, and thereby comprehensible. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] http://richard.levitte.org/ "Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!" -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
