From 73e562edc865c6357cc1b4c8436e0a44957800e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:09:26 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] response --- doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn index 847d0f92a..ed6cf506e 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn @@ -20,16 +20,34 @@ the "cvs add " call and avoid doing anything in that case? > > Thing 1 can probably be handled within ikiwiki, if that seems less > gross to you. -> + +>> It seems like it might be. You can use a `getopt` hook to check +>> `@ARGV` to see how it was called. --[[Joey]] + > Thing 2 I'm less sure of. (I'd like to see the web UI return > immediately on save anyway, to a temporary "rebuilding, please wait > if you feel like knowing when it's done" page, but this problem > with CVS happens with any kind of commit, and could conceivably > happen with some other VCS.) -> + +>> None of the other VCSes let a write lock block a read lock, apparently. +>> +>> Anyway, re the backgrounding, when committing via the web, the +>> post-commit hook doesn't run anyway; the rendering is done via the +>> ikiwiki CGI. It would certianly be nice if it popped up a quick "working" +>> page and replaced it with the updated page when done, but that's +>> unrelated; the post-commit +>> hook only does rendering when committing using the VCS directly. The +>> backgrounding you do actually seems safe enough -- but tacking +>> on a " &" to the ikiwiki wrapper call doesn't need a wrapper script, +>> does it? --[[Joey]] + > Thing 3 I think I did in order to squelch the error messages that > were bollixing up the CGI. It was easy to do this in the wrapper > wrapper, but if that's going away, it can be done just as easily > with output redirection in `CVSROOT/loginfo`. > > --[[schmonz]] + +>> If the error messages screw up the CGI they must go to stdout. +>> I thought we had stderr even in the the CVS dark ages. ;-) --[[Joey]] -- 2.26.2