Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:41:31 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@sri.MT.net, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <199606080641.XAA05690@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199606080618.AAA03027@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 8, 96 00:18:47 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If "committer #1" checks in changes to modules A, B, C, and Q, > > and "committer #2" cheks in changes to modules X, Y, Z, and Q, > > and there is a cumulative conflict, who is at fault if their > > access was not serialized? > > > > Answer: the tools. > > Problem: 99.9% of the time no-one steps on anyone else's code. So > again this is a NON-ISSUE. Then you argument against single writer locks is no longer valid. Let us address your agument against reader locks: is it the fact that the checkout will be internally consistent, with no partial checkins, that you don't like? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606080641.XAA05690>