[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] usher 0.99 release (name-based virtual hosting for
Re: [Monotone-devel] usher 0.99 release (name-based virtual hosting for monotone)
Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:04:55 +0100 (CET)
In message <address@hidden> on Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:04:29 -0500, Hendrik Boom
hendrik> I don't really see a big difference between the script being
hendrik> protected and the separate file being protected. Unless the
hendrik> file with the scripts gets to be huge with a lot of stuff
hendrik> that doesn't need protection, of course.
There's another point, and it's that if needed, a script is easier to
upgrade (if need be) if the data is separate. We've been hitting that
one a couple of times on code.monotone.ca.
hendrik> > There's a little bit more done to check that the monotone server has
hendrik> > started correctly. Usher waits for the server to output something
hendrik> > expects the first line to contain "beginning service". If that
hendrik> > doesn't happen, it will consider the fork a failure, hence the error
hendrik> > message. Maybe there should be a little bit more text explaining
hendrik> > one might get more answers from the appropriate log...
hendrik> Maybe the message should say that the monotone server failed
hendrik> to start up correctly. That, after all, seems to be what's
hendrik> being tested. When I saw the message that the fork failed, I
hendrik> immediately started looking for ways that tthe executable
hendrik> file 'mtn' might not be there or have the wrong permissions,
hendrik> etc. etc.
It's clearly better to look in the log file. If mtn can't be started,
it will say "execvp failed".
But you make a point here, that some of the messages are a bit cryptic
and really require that you know usher by source... It could be smart
to make sure they're are a little bit more verbose, and thereby
Richard Levitte address@hidden
"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish