pushgate (was: Re: [PATCH] largefiles: set the extension as enabled locally after a clone requiring it)

[Matt Mackall]

On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 19:37 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Matt Harbison <mharbison72 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:09:34 -0500, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:13:22AM -0600, Matt Harbison wrote:
> >>> # HG changeset patch
> >>> # User Matt Harbison <matt_harbison at yahoo.com>
> >>> # Date 1422925121 18000
> >>> #      Mon Feb 02 19:58:41 2015 -0500
> >>> # Node ID fda61f818913f4afb4adf5704eba990fe2ac29e5
> >>> # Parent  8b88870cbd1eeefaee0af053ae36728f8c0a1847
> >>> largefiles: set the extension as enabled locally after a clone requiring it
> >> 
> >> This looks reasonable to me.
> > 
> > As an aside, I posted this using the experimental pushgate at around
> noon EST.  The first push aborted with an internal server error 500.

Huh. No traceback logged here.

>   I tried 5-10 minutes later with --traceback on the off chance it
> would yield anything useful, but it went through this time, so IDK
> what the problem was.
> > 
> > Random thoughts:
> > 
> > - It seemed to take a surprisingly long period of time to push, but
> I haven't pushed to a repo over the internet before.  So I'm not sure
> how much was the internet connection, the actual push, and whatever
> checking (I assume) it is doing.  I know the remote output is only
> displayed after the local output with a Windows push, so maybe I
> missed it, but maybe a "This will take several minutes" message would
> help?

Should take well under a minute for a single patch.. but the server load
can occasionally be significant.

> Aha! That explains why your message flunked spf and ended up in spam.
> 
> We probably should have it do something like “pushbot on behalf of foo <pushbot at selenic.com>” and cc the author of the change.

Yep.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.