| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:03:30 +0000 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> The tolerances are presently set to: |
| 6 |
>> - 5 seconds of clock drift. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Set it for a minute or two. This will protect from commits from |
| 9 |
> really out-of-sync systems (like 14 days mentioned above) and will |
| 10 |
> keep usablity hight for others. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'll defer to infra on how much they can accept, but I tend to think |
| 13 |
that we can afford to be a bit more liberal. However, I don't think |
| 14 |
we want to accept things like systems coming out of suspend that are |
| 15 |
off by hours. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> - 'git push' must be completed in 60 seconds. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Why?! What is wrong if push will take 120 seconds? I often commit |
| 21 |
> from quite an old box and git push takes 20-40 seconds, while this |
| 22 |
> is within your limits, the margin is not safe. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> What if someone needs to commit via 2G GPRS or similar slow network |
| 25 |
> link? Afaik we have developers on quite slow and unstable links. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Just set this limit to 5 minutes to make it a sane protection of a |
| 28 |
> stale push. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that only |
| 32 |
one person can be pushing anything at time. So, regardless of any |
| 33 |
rsync limitations, I'm not sure we really want developers to be |
| 34 |
spending 5 minutes doing a push. That means that if anybody else does |
| 35 |
a commit during that 5 minutes they're going to have to rebase it. |
| 36 |
For repos that don't get heavy use I think we could be more liberal. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives