From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:27:26 GMT Subject: Re: failed to lock Message-ID: <7vbpdkic6p.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Jay Soffian writes: > So it seems safer to me that the destination should ignore duplicates > in the received list. We probably need it on both ends. On the receiving end, it probably is a better idea to make verify_lock() succeed if the ref has already been updated to the value we are going to update with, as I suspect that the issue is not limited to receive-pack. It needs some restructuring of lock/verify/commit primitives, though.