From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Grimm Subject: Re: Centralized processes in git Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:40:37 +0800 Message-ID: <46CA3485.4080207@midwinter.com> References: <31FEEAE6-58A6-4A74-9DB7-E6F9D56D1C48@rlb3.com> <20070820192947.GD8542@efreet.light.src> <46CA3398.9060803@midwinter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Boone , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Hudec X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 21 02:40:53 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1INHnd-00032v-IE for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:40:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755195AbXHUAkn (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:40:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753626AbXHUAkm (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:40:42 -0400 Received: from tater2.midwinter.com ([216.32.86.91]:44725 "HELO midwinter.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754936AbXHUAkm (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:40:42 -0400 Received: (qmail 18547 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2007 00:40:41 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=200606; d=midwinter.com; b=W0aK5ck2/mPNCoDx+CdZNFkj5oOsgHZ29TrESpKuAUtDxLz0cu6yb1Lor6CXujMk ; Received: from localhost (HELO sgrimm-mbp.local) (koreth@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Aug 2007 00:40:41 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) In-Reply-To: <46CA3398.9060803@midwinter.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Steven Grimm wrote: > the repository-altering commands would grab a shared lock. I guess that's a bit confusing -- what I mean to say is that the repository-altering commands that today do not lock the repository would grab a shared lock such that, in the absence of something else grabbing the exclusive lock, they will continue to effectively not lock the repository. IOW, by grabbing the shared lock they will continue to exhibit their current behavior under normal conditions. -Steve