Am Dienstag, 11. August 2009 12:45:57 schrieb Johannes
On Aug 11 10:50 Adrian Schröter wrote (shortened):
Am Dienstag, 11. August 2009 10:34:58 schrieb
One needs transaction semantics when working on
1. Begin of transaction
2. Change it
3. End of transaction
This isn't there by intention. Basically no scm implements it because it
blocks other people and slow downs development. Usually first submitter
wins and followers need to adapt.
I can not imagine any system right now, which solves social problems, in
the end people need always to talk to each other if they work on same
> A weak synchronization point preferably with a kind of weak locking
> before someone starts to change it (so that all others who also
> work on it are at least informed) and a strong synchronization point
> preferably with a kind of three way merge when changes are committed.
I do not understand how a weak synchronization point before
blocks other people and slow downs development.
The problem with the current build service is not the
optimistic concurrency control policy at commit time,
the problem is that nobody knows about others who may also work
on a package until it is too late to start collaborating.
Remember Coolo's mass-changes of packages.
All others notice what Coolo did only when it was already done.
If there was a "begin of transaction" the others could get
at least informed before.
I fail to see how a package locking would help here. It would use by the
script, so it would briefly lock the package and than submit it. Not much time
Therefore we have the source links and devel projects, one get the changes
(either automatically or by manually solving via repairlink).
But as you wrote - and as other threads here show
- mutual information
is not really within the scope of the build service but is left to the
users of the build service to do it somehow on their own beside the
build service via manual mails.
We can discuss to have something like a "I am currently working on this
package" flag, but I strongly mind to block something.
The build service is just what it is called, a plain build service
but nothing more.
This is o.k. for me - I did just misinterpret what it actually is.
As far as
I know the current build service does even not implement
real revision control (like e.g. SVN).
it does, check "osc log".
This is mostly useless for me:
jsmeix@nelson:/obs $ osc log openSUSE:Factory cups
shows all entries with "unknown" and "<no message>" but I know
that I explicitely provided messages while I did "osc commit".
osc commit messages go only to your project.
openSUSE:Factory does currently not use the build service accept mechanism
unfortunatly. So the special Rudi tools would need to get extended to add
"request accept" comment. Sounds important ...
with kind regards (mit freundlichem Grinsen),
Ruediger Oertel (email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com)
Linux Fatou 2.6.31-rc4-1-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT 2009-07-29 16:01:26 +0200 x86_64
Key fingerprint = 17DC 6553 86A7 384B 53C5 CA5C 3CE4 F2E7 23F2 B417
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org