cvs update: Updating . cvs update: failed to create lock directory for `/source/radiusd' (/source/radiusd/#cvs.lock): No space left on device cvs update: failed to obtain dir lock in repository `/source/radiusd' cvs [update aborted]: read lock failed - giving up --- Arran
Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
cvs update: Updating . cvs update: failed to create lock directory for `/source/radiusd' (/source/radiusd/#cvs.lock): No space left on device cvs update: failed to obtain dir lock in repository `/source/radiusd' cvs [update aborted]: read lock failed - giving up
Yeah... it does that occasionally. It'll be fixed later today. Alan DeKok.
On Aug 27, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
cvs update: Updating . cvs update: failed to create lock directory for `/source/radiusd' (/source/radiusd/#cvs.lock): No space left on device cvs update: failed to obtain dir lock in repository `/source/radiusd' cvs [update aborted]: read lock failed - giving up
Yeah... it does that occasionally. It'll be fixed later today.
This is fixed. Crash log filled up the remaining disk space. We will be migrating CVS to a new, vastly superior server in the near future. Apologies for the inconvenience. -Chris -- Chris Parker Director, Systems StarNet - US LEC, now a PAETEC Company (888)212-0099 Fax (847)963-1302 Wholesale Internet and VoIP Services http://www.megapop.net NOTICE: Message is sent IN CONFIDENCE to addressees. It may contain information that is privileged, proprietary or confidential.
Hugh Messenger wrote:
Chris Parker quoth:
We will be migrating CVS to a new, vastly superior server in the near future.
Ah, you mean you are switching to SVN?
Ha ha, just my little joke.
Subversion is horrible. IMHO, the choices are git or mercurial. Git has some nice features, and some bad ones (rebase is useful, but bad for shared repositories.) The worst thing I've heard about git is that "the interface requires brains to remember how to use it". I'm not sure I have brainpower to spare for remembering arcane VCS commands. In contrast, mercurial doesn't do branching or rebase as well as it, but it took me 10 seconds to learn, and it hasn't gotten in my way... ever. It Just Works. Alan DeKok.
Alan DeKok wrote:
Hugh Messenger wrote:
Chris Parker quoth:
We will be migrating CVS to a new, vastly superior server in the near future.
Ah, you mean you are switching to SVN?
Ha ha, just my little joke.
Subversion is horrible.
Ok whats horrible about subversion ? I actually quite like it, and it's strange eccentric way of updating directory structures ... and deleting files... and that you can only checkout a folder and not a single file, which is fine for source code... But still. It's ok , it's just a tad 'special'. You don't tell it to do something, you coax it into doing it, often in a sneaky and underhanded way.
IMHO, the choices are git or mercurial. Git has some nice features, and some bad ones (rebase is useful, but bad for shared repositories.) The worst thing I've heard about git is that "the interface requires brains to remember how to use it".
I'm not sure I have brainpower to spare for remembering arcane VCS commands.
In contrast, mercurial doesn't do branching or rebase as well as it, but it took me 10 seconds to learn, and it hasn't gotten in my way... ever. It Just Works.
Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
Ok whats horrible about subversion ? I actually quite like it, and it's strange eccentric way of updating directory structures ... and deleting files... and that you can only checkout a folder and not a single file, which is fine for source code...
It has a huge number of dependencies. Yes, this is less of an issue today with better package managers than when it first started. But... any issue in a dependency MAY affect subversion. It keeps all of the data in databases... which then get corrupted. It's slow. (very, very, slow). And branches aren't directories. Tags aren't version controlled. The Samba people are starting to move away from Subversion, and they've been using it for a while.
But still. It's ok , it's just a tad 'special'.
You don't tell it to do something, you coax it into doing it, often in a sneaky and underhanded way.
Mercurial always does what you expect. It does things quickly. It's easy to use. It never screws anything up. There's only one ".hg" directory. The plugins are very useful. Alan DeKok.
On 28/08/2007, at 03:34, Alan DeKok wrote:
IMHO, the choices are git or mercurial. Git has some nice features, and some bad ones (rebase is useful, but bad for shared repositories.) The worst thing I've heard about git is that "the interface requires brains to remember how to use it".
I'm not sure I have brainpower to spare for remembering arcane VCS commands.
Alan, git used to be really hard to use, but I believe that's not true anymore. BTW, there's a "tech talk" video with Linus Torvalds that's really worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 -- Humberto Diógenes http://humberto.digi.com.br
participants (6)
-
A.L.M.Buxey＠lboro.ac.uk -
Alan DeKok -
Arran Cudbard-Bell -
Chris Parker -
Hugh Messenger -
Humberto Diogenes