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 |