diff options
| author |  Joey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name> | 2015-10-07 11:28:07 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Joey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name> | 2015-10-07 11:28:07 -0400 |
| commit | 85f7859aea9ef91dd5ca353ed9f1f7ff1bdc59b8 (patch) | |
| tree | 3929af8c5991596b75760565be0cb1b613dd675d | |
| parent | 0e85b4b5000b41b4e7310f3fd7dd02b62a6ce6ba (diff) | |
titles
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/concurrent_drop--from_presence_checking_failures.mdwn | 4 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/doc/bugs/concurrent_drop--from_presence_checking_failures.mdwn b/doc/bugs/concurrent_drop--from_presence_checking_failures.mdwn index 93e9b931a..67ab6f569 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/concurrent_drop--from_presence_checking_failures.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/concurrent_drop--from_presence_checking_failures.mdwn @@ -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 |