Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> 1. The time the task takes to execute should not contribute to the >>> interval between running the tasks. >> >> ... as long as the run time is sufficiently shorter than the >> interval, that is. If a task takes 10-30 minutes depending on how >> dirty the repository is, it does not make sense to even try to run >> it every 15 minutes. > > Definitely. The lock on the object database from earlier prevents these > longer-than-anticipated tasks from stacking. Hmph, I actually was (anticipating|hoping) that you would give a good argument for having maintenance subsystem in change of scheduling rather than cron, as it can monitor how the already running job is goind and skip one cycle if needed. The above is instead a good argument that independent cron jobs can still coordinate and there is no central and custom scheduler in the form of 'maintenance run'. >>> 2. If the task fails for some unforseen reason, it would be good to >>> indicate that we _attempted_ the task at a certain timestamp. This >>> will avoid spamming a repository that is in a bad state. >> >> Absolutely. Somebody already mentioned that using the configuration file for recordkeeping may not be a good idea, and I tend to agree, by the way. I may want to periodically take a snapshot of my configuration to notice and remember changes I made myself intentionally (e.g. switched access method of a hosting site from ssh:// to https://, added a new branch that builds on something else, etc.) by comparing the snapshot with previous ones (and might even put it under version-control) and mechanical noise would interfere with it.
