2015-10-12 19:00 GMT+02:00 Charles Forsyth :
>
> On 12 October 2015 at 17:49, Álvaro Jurado wrote:
>
>> what ensures sha key is in fs.
>
>
> The reason many of us are a little sceptical about it being fsync as such
> preventing the data appearing
> is that if the git function that writes the key
Has sense. Thanks Charles.
Álvaro
El 12/10/2015 19:03, "Charles Forsyth" escribió:
>
> On 12 October 2015 at 17:49, Álvaro Jurado wrote:
>
>> what ensures sha key is in fs.
>
>
> The reason many of us are a little sceptical about it being fsync as such
> preventing the data appearing
> is that
On 12 October 2015 at 17:49, Álvaro Jurado wrote:
> what ensures sha key is in fs.
The reason many of us are a little sceptical about it being fsync as such
preventing the data appearing
is that if the git function that writes the key does a write or pwrite,
the key will be in the file system o
I remember tracing entire clone process. It was hanging in a function
(don't remember which, the only one has fsync) what ensures sha key is in
fs. I bypassed it with a rare mess, so if key is there, it works, if not,
fails. In fact fsync changes introduced by Linus was in the line of
ensuring that
erik quanstrom wrote:
|On Wed Oct 7 14:25:58 PDT 2015, elbingm...@gmail.com wrote:
|in the case of system crash, fsync doesn't provide strong \
|guarantees that the
|write will not be lost, or the fs not corrupted even in li\
|nux. some versions of
|the linux kernel do nothing on fsync, fs
On 10 October 2015 at 19:25, Álvaro Jurado wrote:
> While checking out it looses in any moment some sha key and then fatal.
> Other times not.
Why do you think that was fsync, and not something else?
Agree at all. As I said, after some time fighting with it I was bored. I
remember asking you in g+ about fsync issues when I was working on it.
In fact it fails for example, if you clone go repo and then checkout a
branch. While checking out it looses in any moment some sha key and then
fatal. Oth
> It works with go get but sometimes it fails miserably retrieving packages
> because it has an strong dependency of fsync to freeze sha keys in fs
> during fetching. And that is just a dummy in Plan 9 ape. I used fflush
i believe the problem has been misdiagnosed. fsync can't be the issue,
since
On Wed Oct 7 14:25:58 PDT 2015, elbingm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes, it has no sense in Plan 9, I know, thanks. I was talking about ape lib
> because is what was used to port git in my case.
>
> I even found a Rob's old mail answering a similar question saying that it's
> a matter of file server (
Yes, it has no sense in Plan 9, I know, thanks. I was talking about ape lib
because is what was used to port git in my case.
I even found a Rob's old mail answering a similar question saying that it's
a matter of file server (I can't remember original question). And there are
many debates around i
On 7 October 2015 at 16:17, Álvaro Jurado wrote:
> because it has an strong dependency of fsync to freeze sha keys in fs
> during fetching. And that is just a dummy in Plan 9 ape
fsync causes any operating system buffers in the "buffer cache" to be
flushed to "disk" (not user-space buffers), so
Source should be in the same site, just add /files to hostname and look for
tgz. I think 1.5.8.3, last year version.
It was built with gcc 4.8 port for plan9 (static). You'll need some kind of
ksh to use it, git has many shell scripts.
It works with go get but sometimes it fails miserably retrievi
> My new employer uses svn but is about to migrate to git so I would
> be interested in a port, I might even get some cycles to help.
I'm no help here, but one of the Harvey guys (pre-Harvey) apparently
built git for Plan 9. Unfortunately, only the 386 binaries were made
available, no source code.
Just buy a tshirt.
On 04/10/2015 6:59 AM, "Jacob Todd" wrote:
> that's all we use on 9front, though they might be using a different
> version.
> On Oct 3, 2015 3:29 PM, "Jeff Sickel" wrote:
>
>> Not unless they forked the fork and fixed the ssl module in the Python
>> 2.7.9-plan9 branch.
>>
>> I
that's all we use on 9front, though they might be using a different version.
On Oct 3, 2015 3:29 PM, "Jeff Sickel" wrote:
> Not unless they forked the fork and fixed the ssl module in the Python
> 2.7.9-plan9 branch.
>
> I’ve not had the time nor energy to finish it off yet.
>
> -jas
>
> On Oct 2
Not unless they forked the fork and fixed the ssl module in the Python
2.7.9-plan9 branch.
I’ve not had the time nor energy to finish it off yet.
-jas
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:48 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> did you fix the SSL interface in python, too?
>
> - erik
> On Oct 2, 2015 9:37 PM,
you can use mercurial on plan 9 with python installed, not hard to
understand
Well, colour me confused. I can make no sense of this thread. Would that Boyd
were here to explain it.
> On Oct 3, 2015, at 5:48 pm, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> did you fix the SSL interface in python, too?
>
> - erik
> On Oct 2, 2015 9:37 PM, Nick Owens wrote:
> 9front now supports tls 1.2 i
did you fix the SSL interface in python, too?
- erik
On Oct 2, 2015 9:37 PM, Nick Owens wrote:9front now supports tls 1.2 in libsec/devtls. Mercurial can make use of it through webfs.
On Oct 2, 2015 7:35 PM, "erik quanstrom" wrote:On Fri Oct 2 18:46:06 PDT 2015, khm@sc
9front now supports tls 1.2 in libsec/devtls. Mercurial can make use of it
through webfs.
On Oct 2, 2015 7:35 PM, "erik quanstrom" wrote:
> On Fri Oct 2 18:46:06 PDT 2015, k...@sciops.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:56:47PM +0200, a.regenf...@gmx.de wrote:
> > > >Mercurial works.
> > >
On Wed Sep 30 03:03:36 PDT 2015, brantleyco...@me.com wrote:
> How can it be a secret 'society' if there's just one member for each secret
> society?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:11 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue Sep 29 12:45:25 PDT 2015, k...@sciops.net wrote:
On Fri Oct 2 18:46:06 PDT 2015, k...@sciops.net wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:56:47PM +0200, a.regenf...@gmx.de wrote:
> > >Mercurial works.
> > If you have got an installed python.
>
> that's pretty much universally the case for mercurial, yes.
well, there are some problems with ssl.
- e
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:56:47PM +0200, a.regenf...@gmx.de wrote:
> >Mercurial works.
> If you have got an installed python.
that's pretty much universally the case for mercurial, yes.
khm
>Mercurial works.
If you have got an installed python.
adrian
>CVS works adequately.
Thanks a lot.
adrian
In a previous job I put in some quite serious effort to
port SVN to APE, but it is dependent on... well pretty
much everything. I never managed to even get it to compile,
and lost the will to live.
My new employer uses svn but is about to migrate to git so I would
be interested in a port, I might
Jeff Sickel wrote:
|> On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Charles Forsyth rs...@gmail.com> wrote:
|>
|> Here's a small but representative example.
|
|That’s just an example of a C file. The joy of Git is the\
| rest of the requirements to actually use it:
|
|- bash
Isn't a POSIX shell enough
> having something similar to git or mercurial (or even svn/cvs...) would be
> nice.
CVS works adequately. It's on sources and needs some minute fixes to
get the permissions exactly right: I kept getting files created with
exactly NO permission bits - my last disk failure got rid of my poor
effo
Mercurial works.
--
Aram Hăvărneanu
>> Is the git protocol really so huge that a native implementation
>> wouldn't be feasible?
>The git protocol and file format is very simple. I'm sure it's easier
>to write something from scratch than port git.
>Aram Hăvărneanu
Is there a version control system that can be installed on Plan 9 wit
Here's git "rewritten" in Javascript:
http://gitlet.maryrosecook.com/
-joe
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is the git protocol really so huge that a native implementation
> > wouldn't be feasible?
>
>
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the git protocol really so huge that a native implementation
> wouldn't be feasible?
The git protocol and file format is very simple. I'm sure it's easier
to write something from scratch than port git.
--
Aram Hăvărneanu
Is the git protocol really so huge that a native implementation
wouldn't be feasible?
Jeff Sickel wrote:
> And then if you want all the fancy tools & wrappers groups seem to like
> these days:
Git is best used from the command line. All the tools just get
in the way.
The libgit work is probably the way to go for Plan 9.
Arnold
It's still free. It just takes a heck of a lot of effort to port it to
other platforms after you get addicted to it.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jeff Sickel
wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Charles Forsyth
> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a small but representative example.
>
> That’s just
On 1 October 2015 at 18:31, Jeff Sickel wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Charles Forsyth
> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a small but representative example.
>
> That’s just an example of a C file.
I was really just writing about the difficulty of current C portability in
general.
I hadn't looke
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Charles Forsyth
> wrote:
>
> Here's a small but representative example.
That’s just an example of a C file. The joy of Git is the rest of the
requirements to actually use it:
- bash
- perl5
And then if you want all the fancy tools & wrappers groups seem to li
And buy a t-shirt.
On 30/09/2015 5:44 AM, "Kurt H Maier" wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:18:20PM -0300, Tiago Natel wrote:
> > is there someone else interested in write a git tool for plan 9 ?
> >
> > []'s
>
> This has been written. You just need to fill out a Secret Plan 9 Super
> Secret So
> How can it be a secret 'society' if there's just one member for each secret
> society?
That, my good man, is the biggest secret of all!
☺
-Steve
How can it be a secret 'society' if there's just one member for each secret
society?
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:11 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
>> On Tue Sep 29 12:45:25 PDT 2015, k...@sciops.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:18:20PM -0300, Tiago Natel wrote:
>>> is ther
lucio, I don't know what you're refering to. Perhaps because I don't
understand POSIX, but also to understand your abstraction I would need
some more explanation.
> I have managed to get libgit2 ported to Plan 9
Contrary to all I've said so far, I think this is good.
Changes to APE, maybe less so, but maybe they ARE valuable?
I need to figure how to track 9atom and 9front without losing 9legacy.
But I've always viewed three-way merges as daunting, never m
> I was being sarcastic about the portability of so much contemporary C code.
> You can't just compile it, even in an an ANSI/POSIX environment.
Philosophically, I think that we're chasing the wrong wild goose.
Computer Scientists (I've been giving Dijkstra some attention, of
late) ought to focus
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:18:20PM -0300, Tiago Natel wrote:
> is there someone else interested in write a git tool for plan 9 ?
May be me. But now i have no time for this :-).
--
Неманов Олег (Nemanov Oleg)
On 30 September 2015 at 08:47, Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> I was being sarcastic about the portability of so much contemporary C code.
Here's a small but representative example.
#if HAVE_SYS_TIME_H
#include
#endif
#if HAVE_SYS_CLOCK_GETTIME
time_t
time_now(void)
{
struct timespec timespec_val
I have managed to get libgit2 ported to Plan 9, but I haven't had enough time
to actually take a shot at making a viable client yet.
https://bitbucket.org/oridb/libgit2
It needed a couple of changes to APE to make it work, but they've been
integrated
into 9front.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:18:3
> it would be useful, to access git repositories directly. unfortunately, git
> is a C program, so it's not very portable.
Hey, it could be C++ and even less portable, at least to Plan 9.
If I wasn't stuck thinking that I could do better with a (very fancy)
synthetic file server, Venti-like archi
On 30 September 2015 at 08:36, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do you say C programs aren't portable, we have a C compiler already?
I was being sarcastic about the portability of so much contemporary C code.
You can't just compile it, even in an an ANSI/POSIX environment.
There isn't so much quality software that can be compiled directly on
plan9 and which is accessible only via git. Most useful stuff for
9front is in mercurial repos or even directly mountable via 9p.
Still a gitfs would be a fun project for someone who wants to play
with programming a simple exampl
On 30 September 2015 at 04:11, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > is there someone else interested in write a git tool for plan 9 ?
it would be useful, to access git repositories directly. unfortunately, git
is a C program, so it's not very portable.
On Tue Sep 29 12:45:25 PDT 2015, k...@sciops.net wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:18:20PM -0300, Tiago Natel wrote:
> > is there someone else interested in write a git tool for plan 9 ?
> >
> > []'s
>
> This has been written. You just need to fill out a Secret Plan 9 Super
> Secret Society ap
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:18:20PM -0300, Tiago Natel wrote:
> is there someone else interested in write a git tool for plan 9 ?
>
> []'s
This has been written. You just need to fill out a Secret Plan 9 Super
Secret Society application and find three Bilderbergs to vouch for you.
khm
is there someone else interested in write a git tool for plan 9 ?
[]'s
2015-09-29 13:58 GMT-03:00 Skip Tavakkolian :
> it is informative. i find it easy to read -- good flow and visually
> pleasing typesetting.
>
> http://ftp.newartisans.com/pub/git.from.bottom.up.pdf
>
>
it is informative. i find it easy to read -- good flow and visually
pleasing typesetting.
http://ftp.newartisans.com/pub/git.from.bottom.up.pdf
54 matches
Mail list logo