ssh without hg installed

[Benoit Boissinot]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 09:18:29PM +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
> William Dode <wilk at flibuste.net> writes:
> 
> > On 29-03-2009, Martin Geisler wrote:
> >
> >> For a push it makes some sense to require hg on the remote side, but
> >> for a clone Mercurial could in principle fall back to do the
> >> equivalent of
> >>
> >>   scp -r . remote-host
> >>
> >> The same could happen for a clone/pull from a remote host -- just
> >> like we can clone/pull from a set of static HTTP server.
> >
> > But what will append if someone else do a push in the same time ? If
> > mercurial could do it, it should not do it silently.
> 
> It should be fine -- Mercurial supports single-writer multiple-reader
> access where reading never requires any locks:
> 
>   http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/behind-the-scenes.html#id467742
> 
> This means that cloning/pulling from a repository that is being updated
> will result in a consistent snapshot of the repository, but without the
> latest changesets.

That is not exactly true if the files are accessed directly. If the repo
is being updated will it's being copied (scp . remote: in parallel to a
pull or a commit), there will be extra data in filelogs.

regards,

Benoit

-- 
:wq