Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] refs: implement simple transactions for the packed-refs file
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 20, 2013, 17:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vd2rgwvvd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <51C2B41F.2050708@alum.mit.edu>
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> But currently only the main packed ref cache can be locked, so it would > be possible for lock_packed_refs() to use the static packlock instance > for locking.
Perhaps I am missing something from the previous discussions, but I am having trouble understanding the "main packed ref cache" part of the above. "main" as opposed to...? Is it envisioned that later somebody can lock one subpart while another can lock a different and non-overlapping subpart, to make changes independently, and somehow their non-overlapping changes will be consolidated into a single consistent result?