New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue 201 lock #209

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Aug 12, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@cakirke
Contributor

cakirke commented May 10, 2015

address #201 - support additional File::NFSLock capabilities, stale lock expiry, errstr in thrown exceptions - will include lock holders in next version of File::NFSLock

Show outdated Hide outdated t/02-bowels/80-repo-lock.t Outdated
@thaljef

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thaljef

thaljef May 12, 2015

Owner

I suppose stealing "stale" lockfiles is pretty common, so I'm ok with this. But it makes me a bit nervous. Personally, I would only want to steal a lockfile if I knew the current holder was dead and/or I gave permission to steal it (it seems that setting the stale timeout is tantamount to giving permission). Would it be prudent to issue a warning when this happens?

Owner

thaljef commented May 12, 2015

I suppose stealing "stale" lockfiles is pretty common, so I'm ok with this. But it makes me a bit nervous. Personally, I would only want to steal a lockfile if I knew the current holder was dead and/or I gave permission to steal it (it seems that setting the stale timeout is tantamount to giving permission). Would it be prudent to issue a warning when this happens?

@thaljef

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thaljef

thaljef May 12, 2015

Owner

Note: SQLite has its own locks, so that gives us a bit of a safety net.

Owner

thaljef commented May 12, 2015

Note: SQLite has its own locks, so that gives us a bit of a safety net.

@cakirke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cakirke

cakirke May 13, 2015

Contributor

+1 on nervous, agree on setting environment = acknowledgement/permission but an appropriate message wouldn't hurt

Contributor

cakirke commented May 13, 2015

+1 on nervous, agree on setting environment = acknowledgement/permission but an appropriate message wouldn't hurt

thaljef added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2015

v0.09998
      [THANKS]

      Several of the changes in this release were contributed by Chris Kirke as
      part of the CPAN Pull Request Challenge, organized by Neil Bowers. I am
      sincerely grateful for their efforts.

      [BUG FIXES]

      - The t/, xt/, inc, and local/ directories are always ignored when
        indexing a distribution. This is exactly what PAUSE does.

      - Fixed test failures caused by the presence of a ~/.pause file. GH #172.

      [NEW COMMANDS]

      - The "look" command will unpack a distribution into a temporary directory
      and spawn a subshell in that location.  Contributed by Kal Hodgson.

      [ENHANCMENTS]

      - The "diff" command now has a --format option for more precise control
      of the output. Contributed by Florian Ragwitz.

      - A stale repository lockfile can be stollen if the PINTO_STALE_LOCKFILE_TIMEOUT
      environment variable is set. Contributed by Chris Kirke. GH #209.

      - Operations with the --dry-run option are now allowed on locked stacks.
      Contributed by Chris Kirke. GH #207.

      - Improved error messages when a repository is not in a sane state.
      Contributed by Chris Kirke. GH #199.

      - Improved latency from Pinto::Server by autoflushing the output.

      [PREREQUISITES]

      - Several of the prerequisite modules have been upgraded to newer versions
      to take advantage of recent improvements, and to support Perl 5.22.0. If
      you have installed Pinto as a stand-alone application as described in
      Pinto::Manual::Installing then your environment will be insulated from these
      upgrades.
@thaljef

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thaljef

thaljef Jun 10, 2015

Owner

Hmm, I thought this was included in the 0.09998 release, but it appears that I never merged it.

Owner

thaljef commented Jun 10, 2015

Hmm, I thought this was included in the 0.09998 release, but it appears that I never merged it.

thaljef added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 12, 2015

@thaljef thaljef merged commit 78b6911 into thaljef:master Aug 12, 2015

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment