Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:46:38AM -0500, Marc Branchaud wrote: > >> fatal: Unable to create >> '/usr/xiplink/git/public/Main.git/refs/builds/3.3.0-3.lock': File exists. >> If no other git process is currently running, this probably means a >> git process crashed in this repository earlier. Make sure no other git >> process is running and remove the file manually to continue. >> fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly >> >> I think the cause is pretty obvious, and in a normal interactive situation >> the solution would be to simply try again. But in a script trying again >> isn't so straightforward. >> >> So I'm wondering if there's any sense or desire to make git a little more >> flexible here. Maybe teach it to wait and try again once or twice when it >> sees a lock file. I presume that normally a ref lock file should disappear >> pretty quickly, so there shouldn't be a need to wait very long. > > Yeah, we probably should try again. The simplest possible (and untested) > patch is below. However, a few caveats: > > 1. This patch unconditionally retries for all lock files. Do all > callers want that? I actually have to say that _no_ caller should want this. If somebody earlier crashed, we would want to know about it (and how). If somebody else alive is actively holding a lock, why not make it the responsibility of a calling script to decide if it wants to retry itself or perhaps decide to do something else? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html