That just seems unnecessarily complicated. Why can't ikiwiki itself detect
the "cvs add <directory>" call and avoid doing anything in that case?
--[[Joey]]
+
+> The wrapper wrapper does three things:
+>
+> 7. It ignores `cvs add <directory>`, since this is a weird CVS
+> behavior that ikiwiki gets confused by and doesn't need to act on.
+> 7. It prevents `cvs` locking against itself: `cvs commit` takes a
+> write lock and runs the post-commit hook, which runs `cvs update`,
+> which wants a read lock and sleeps forever -- unless the post-commit
+> hook runs in the background so the commit can "finish".
+> 7. It fails silently if the ikiwiki post-commit hook is missing.
+> CVS doesn't have any magic post-commit filenames, so hooks have to
+> be configured explicitly. I don't think a commit will actually fail
+> if a configured post-commit hook is missing (though I can't test
+> this at the moment).
+>
+> Thing 1 can probably be handled within ikiwiki, if that seems less
+> gross to you.
+
+>> It seems like it might be. You can use a `getopt` hook to check
+>> `@ARGV` to see how it was called. --[[Joey]]
+
+> Thing 2 I'm less sure of. (I'd like to see the web UI return
+> immediately on save anyway, to a temporary "rebuilding, please wait
+> if you feel like knowing when it's done" page, but this problem
+> with CVS happens with any kind of commit, and could conceivably
+> happen with some other VCS.)
+
+>> None of the other VCSes let a write lock block a read lock, apparently.
+>>
+>> Anyway, re the backgrounding, when committing via the web, the
+>> post-commit hook doesn't run anyway; the rendering is done via the
+>> ikiwiki CGI. It would certianly be nice if it popped up a quick "working"
+>> page and replaced it with the updated page when done, but that's
+>> unrelated; the post-commit
+>> hook only does rendering when committing using the VCS directly. The
+>> backgrounding you do actually seems safe enough -- but tacking
+>> on a " &" to the ikiwiki wrapper call doesn't need a wrapper script,
+>> does it? --[[Joey]]
+
+> Thing 3 I think I did in order to squelch the error messages that
+> were bollixing up the CGI. It was easy to do this in the wrapper
+> wrapper, but if that's going away, it can be done just as easily
+> with output redirection in `CVSROOT/loginfo`.
+>
+> --[[schmonz]]
+
+>> If the error messages screw up the CGI they must go to stdout.
+>> I thought we had stderr even in the the CVS dark ages. ;-) --[[Joey]]