mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

titles

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2015-10-07 11:28:07 -04:00
parent f37c2c6a73
commit c454b82c52
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
doc/bugs/concurrent_drop--from_presence_checking_failures.mdwn
View file

@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ How do we get locking in this case?
Adding locking to C and D is not a general option, because special remotes
are dumb key/value stores; they may have no locking operations.
## a solution: require locking
## a solution: remote locking
What could be done is, change from checking if the remote has content, to
trying to lock it there. If the remote doesn't support locking, it can't
@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ pile up in a transfer remote?
> If moves were used, the object moves from A to B, and so there's only
> 1 copy instead of the 2 as before, in the interim until C gets connected.
## a solution: require (minimal) locking
## a solution: minimal remote locking
Instead of requiring N locked copies of content when dropping,
require only 1 locked copy. Check that content is on the other N-1