On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 12:29 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, seth vidal wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:16 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Jeremy Katz wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:29:00 -0400 (EDT) > >>> Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I don't see any added value in printing the message multiple times. > >>> > >>> The value is mostly avoiding the impression of things being hung. > >> > >> If I see a message which says "Waiting for exclusive lock ..." and nothing > >> more, I assume that the software is still waiting for an exclusive lock. > > > > Except when that suffer is interacting with rpm. Then you might think it > > is wedged in a FUTEX_WAIT for the rest of eternity. > > Isn't that "still waiting for an exclusive lock"? > > [Is suffer the same as software? Or is it specific to software built on > top of rpm libraries? :-)] > > If the software is wedged for eternity, is a new message every two seconds > any better than one message and then nothing more? I would rather have the > latter...
The distinction is what jeremy mentioned. We're trying to avoid the perception that we're wedged. We have enough times where that perception is reality. So printing _something_ is much more better. -sv _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
