Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-03 Thread Ron W
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Warren Young wrote: > After sending that prior message, I did think of a way to allow retries > without inconsistency, but it would surely slow Fossil down: there could be > a mode that turns cloning into a replay of the master repo’s timeline. > > That is, every c

Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-03 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 01:48:52PM +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: >In terms of the type of data, our data and fossil's data is very > different, but in terms of the time it takes to synchronize large data > stores/repositories, we're in the exact same situation. We don't expect > synchronization

Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-03 Thread Jan Danielsson
On 02/02/15 23:23, Warren Young wrote: >> The annoying thing is that when it fails, it wipes away whatever >> progress it has made. > Yes, well, that’s the nature of transactional DB updates: all or nothing. Implied: There's only one way to use transactions when performing initial synchroniza

Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-02 Thread Andy Bradford
Thus said Jan Danielsson on Sun, 01 Feb 2015 15:08:07 +0100: > In that thread the commit > http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/b4dffdac5e706980d911a0e672526ad461ec0640 > was brought up as a potential fix. I updated to get the fix and then > tried running a clone, and I could indeed get the

Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-02 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:35:13PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > >> > >> Are you seriously asking for Fossil to allow a local clone to be in an > >> inconsistent s

Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-02 Thread Warren Young
> On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: >> >> Are you seriously asking for Fossil to allow a local clone to be in an >> inconsistent state after an error? > > Why does it have to be an inconsistent state? At t

Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-02 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Jan Danielsson > > wrote: > > > > The annoying thing is that when it fails, it wipes away whatever > > progress it has made. > > Yes, well, that’s the nature of transactional DB updates: all or noth

Re: [fossil-users] Old problem not entirely gone?

2015-02-02 Thread Warren Young
> On Feb 1, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Jan Danielsson wrote: > > The annoying thing is that when it fails, it wipes away whatever > progress it has made. Yes, well, that’s the nature of transactional DB updates: all or nothing. > How difficult would it be to allow fossil to pick up where it left > off