From 71116f064bca2b840f6270849c4e5aab394c0a45 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://joeyh.name/" Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:01:15 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- ...mment_1_39eb527d64367e6762281246f1d49b1f._comment | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/Transfers_continue_after_daemon_stopped/comment_1_39eb527d64367e6762281246f1d49b1f._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/Transfers_continue_after_daemon_stopped/comment_1_39eb527d64367e6762281246f1d49b1f._comment b/doc/bugs/Transfers_continue_after_daemon_stopped/comment_1_39eb527d64367e6762281246f1d49b1f._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..9d504f743c --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/Transfers_continue_after_daemon_stopped/comment_1_39eb527d64367e6762281246f1d49b1f._comment @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="http://joeyh.name/" + ip="209.250.56.47" + subject="comment 1" + date="2013-11-05T16:01:14Z" + content=""" +I've checked, and shutting down the daemon does cause it to stop any transfers it is running. + +However, this does not stop other transfers initiated by the other paired computer. + +I'm ambivilant about whether local pairing should only allow transfers when both daemons are running. +"""]]