From db9dbc3161b18d2f6fb99b101d560cbd85be2997 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:45:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] no --- ..._190f6a52d9e49b2a092ad4c848e9d0b4._comment | 21 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/locks_during_--batch_operations/comment_1_190f6a52d9e49b2a092ad4c848e9d0b4._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/locks_during_--batch_operations/comment_1_190f6a52d9e49b2a092ad4c848e9d0b4._comment b/doc/forum/locks_during_--batch_operations/comment_1_190f6a52d9e49b2a092ad4c848e9d0b4._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..bfc05f4ac6 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/locks_during_--batch_operations/comment_1_190f6a52d9e49b2a092ad4c848e9d0b4._comment @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2020-02-20T21:33:35Z" + content=""" +No, there are not. + +I'd like to turn this question around. You, and others, seem to have low +expectations of git-annex's locking and handling of concurrency. Is there a +change to the documentation somewhere that would convey that git-annex +handles multiple concurrent operations, without stepping on each other's +toes, with extensive fine-grained locking at both the thread and file level? + +Because I keep anwering what seems like the same question, over and over. +And I don't understand why people seem to expect the worst, it's kind of a +downer and it's tedious to keep having to reassure people. Is it +something I did? Is it a general expectation that concurrency is hard and +so everything will get it wrong? Is it specifically git certianly having +poor locking in several places notably around the index and assuming that +git-annex will inherit it? +"""]]