From a91c4d945e0c8c82426aa1a89a0058605d6bccd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 15:13:54 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- ..._10_1cbef11391d23210230872a75f8e5414._comment | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/annex_get_should_retry_failed_downloads_from_S3/comment_10_1cbef11391d23210230872a75f8e5414._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/annex_get_should_retry_failed_downloads_from_S3/comment_10_1cbef11391d23210230872a75f8e5414._comment b/doc/bugs/annex_get_should_retry_failed_downloads_from_S3/comment_10_1cbef11391d23210230872a75f8e5414._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..6eb6b9e571 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/annex_get_should_retry_failed_downloads_from_S3/comment_10_1cbef11391d23210230872a75f8e5414._comment @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 10""" + date="2021-12-06T19:11:20Z" + content=""" +Update: All problems noted above are fixed, fine-grained locking is merged, +and it seems to work well! + +Except for this, which I have not gotten to. It may not actually matter, but +worth looking at to be sure: + +`getLockStatus` and `checkSaneLock` look at the status of the pid lock, +but not yet at the fine-grained STM lock status. And as implemented, +I think they never worked at all, since they check for posix locks on the +pid lock file. +"""]]