From f324cfa9e7450dad941511563e6dc98ae2f1dad1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:04:38 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] close --- ...single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__.mdwn | 2 ++ ...nt_8_d0d8a729badb551bb8d0f77e7104c159._comment | 15 +++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__/comment_8_d0d8a729badb551bb8d0f77e7104c159._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__.mdwn b/doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__.mdwn index 230e6c3918..28a8cc8c34 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__.mdwn @@ -37,3 +37,5 @@ I wondered if there is an easy way to restrict a single instance for some specia [[!tag projects/datalad]] [[!meta title="extend external special remote protocol so a process can refuse to PREPARE, making -J not use it concurrently"]] + +> [[rejected|done]] --[[Joey]] diff --git a/doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__/comment_8_d0d8a729badb551bb8d0f77e7104c159._comment b/doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__/comment_8_d0d8a729badb551bb8d0f77e7104c159._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ca6e1c8a68 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/howto_guarantee_a_single_instance_of_a_special_remote__63__/comment_8_d0d8a729badb551bb8d0f77e7104c159._comment @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 8""" + date="2020-09-28T14:00:00Z" + content=""" +The async extension to the protocol guarantees only a single process will +be run. The remote might be asked to start several operations +concurrently, but if it wants to queue them sequentially, that should be +fine. + +While it might be a bit of a round about way to get this functionality, +since the extension complicates the protocol a bit, I'm inclined to feel +it's enough, and not add this other extension, +at least without some more compelling use case. +"""]]