Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 04:57:32PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> On Sep 26, Andrew [afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com] wrote:
> > Stable sorcery did not check the return code, it assumes cvs always works.
> > Thats a bug. That and several other things were what prompted the major
> > re-factoring of download code.
> > 
> > Im open to suggestions on a better compromise behavior for failed scm
> > checkouts.
> 
> I guess the more complicated thing to do would look like:
> 
> - preexisting scm checkout spool tarball is available?
>   - Y: attempt to update
>     - update succeeded?
>       - Y: create new spool tarball
>       - N: abandon any partial update, revert back to preexisting tarball
>   - N: attempt initial checkout
>     - checkout succeeded?
>       - Y: create spool tarball
>       - N: die
> 
> The case where it fails the update and we revert back to an existing
> tarball probably would need to ask the user what to do next*.  The source
> hasn't changed at all but maybe they want/need to do a rebuild of what they
> have anyway.
> 
> (*It may do this now, I haven't seen a failed cvs update on test sorcery in
> practice yet.)

Ok, I'll see what I can do, unfortunatly we cant really prompt the
user for input in this phase as downloading typically happens in the
background...

-Andrew

-- 
_________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew D. Stitt  | acedit at armory.com    | astitt at sourcemage.org | 
| irc: afrayedknot | Sorcery Team Lead       |      ftp://t.armory.com/ |
| 1024D/D39B096C   | 76E4 728A 04EE 62B2 A09A 96D7 4D9E 239B D39B 096C  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------