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 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. 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 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 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 > 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. > 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, Instead of requiring N locked copies of content when dropping,
require only 1 locked copy. Check that content is on the other N-1 require only 1 locked copy. Check that content is on the other N-1