From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Stephen R. van den Berg" Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-daemon: Simplify child management and associated logging by Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:21:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20080813072101.GA12628@cuci.nl> References: <20080812193613.32388.92145.stgit@aristoteles.cuci.nl> <20080812212534.6871.19377.stgit@aristoteles.cuci.nl> <20080812223224.GA4134@steel.home> <20080812231210.GB15265@cuci.nl> <20080813062008.GA4345@blimp.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Riesen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 13 09:22:11 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KTAgK-0001KG-F6 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:22:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751664AbYHMHVF (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:21:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751825AbYHMHVE (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:21:04 -0400 Received: from aristoteles.cuci.nl ([212.125.128.18]:46823 "EHLO aristoteles.cuci.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751664AbYHMHVE (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:21:04 -0400 Received: by aristoteles.cuci.nl (Postfix, from userid 500) id 526985465; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:21:01 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080813062008.GA4345@blimp.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Alex Riesen wrote: >Stephen R. van den Berg, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 01:12:10 +0200: >> Alex Riesen wrote: >> I merely copied the other argument parsing methods, didn't want to >> improve this, just functionally equivalent (will do fine here, IMO). >In case of error max_connections will be 0. How does your code handle >it? It is a server side program, which supposed to provide reliable >service. In this case, an operator mistake is not even noticable until >the first request and even than the clients have to complain first. Well, same thing that goes wrong when the timeout is set too low, of course. But, you have a point, I'll provide a reasonable cap and support unlimited as well. -- Sincerely, Stephen R. van den Berg. "And now for something *completely* different!"