[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences)
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences) |
Date: |
Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:12:06 -0400 |
>> AFAICT, if you reread the sequences file, that will solve that
>> problem. I cannot think of a scenario when it does not; can
>> you think of one that doing that will fail?
>
>Not off hand, but I can't get beyond "merge conflict".
Maybe you're thinking of it wrong.
We have message N. For each sequence, there is 1 bit of information:
is it on this sequence?
Now think about nmh operations: do we ever get into a situation where one
command wants to add a message to a sequence, and another command
wants to _remove_ the same message from the same sequence? That's really
the only possible "merge conflict" we're talking about here.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2013/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/03/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ralph Corderoy, 2013/03/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), Ken Hornstein, 2013/03/10
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/10
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences),
Ken Hornstein <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences), David Levine, 2013/03/10