Don't "hang" gclient if fast-forward is not possible.

Don't "hang" gclient if fast-forward is not possible.

As noticed in the TODO, raw_input (used by ask_for_data) works badly
on background threads. On my Windows it doesn't even print the prompt which
makes it hard to interact with it.

Better to just abort and tell the user of gclient how to proceed.

BUG=

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=201295

[Daniel Bratell, 2013-05-20 12:09:45]

Better to abort than to hang.

[M-A Ruel, 2013-05-20 20:19:09]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-21 13:29:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bratell@opera.com/15421005/3001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-21 13:30:47]

Change committed as 201295

[droger, 2013-06-03 11:27:50]

Is it still possible to use gclient in multithreaded mode?
Previously I was able to use it (barring some display issues for the prompt, but
it worked).
Now the scripts simply fails, and I have to run it single threaded, which is
significantly slower.

[M-A Ruel, 2013-06-03 11:36:14]

"simply fails" is not informative.

M-A


2013/6/3 <droger@chromium.org>

> Is it still possible to use gclient in multithreaded mode?
> Previously I was able to use it (barring some display issues for the
> prompt, but
> it worked).
> Now the scripts simply fails, and I have to run it single threaded, which
> is
> significantly slower.
>
>
https://chromiumcodereview.**appspot.com/15421005/<https://chromiumcodereview...
>

[Daniel Bratell, 2013-06-03 12:02:22]

On 2013/06/03 11:27:50, droger wrote:
> Now the scripts simply fails, and I have to run it single threaded, which is
> significantly slower.

I don't know in what way it fails, but if it's about aborting waiting for
feedback, I guess you could do single-thread, respond to the question(s), then
abort and do multi-process, though I agree with M-A that it's hard to say
without knowing exactly what goes wrong.

[M-A Ruel, 2013-06-03 12:06:25]

On 2013/06/03 12:02:22, bratell wrote:
> On 2013/06/03 11:27:50, droger wrote:
> > Now the scripts simply fails, and I have to run it single threaded, which is
> > significantly slower.
> 
> I don't know in what way it fails, but if it's about aborting waiting for
> feedback, I guess you could do single-thread, respond to the question(s), then
> abort and do multi-process, though I agree with M-A that it's hard to say
> without knowing exactly what goes wrong.

Also note https://codereview.chromium.org/16255002/ could (?) be helpful.