Re: [PATCH] Retry acquiring reference locks for 100ms

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:51:34PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > The philosophy of reference locking has been, "if another process is > changing a reference, then whatever I'm trying to do to it will > probably fail anyway because my old-SHA-1 value is probably no longer > current". But this

Re: [PATCH] Retry acquiring reference locks for 100ms

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty writes: > >> The philosophy of reference locking has been, "if another process is >> changing a reference, then whatever I'm trying to do to it will >> probably fail anyway because

Re: [PATCH] Retry acquiring reference locks for 100ms

Michael Haggerty writes: > The philosophy of reference locking has been, "if another process is > changing a reference, then whatever I'm trying to do to it will > probably fail anyway because my old-SHA-1 value is probably no longer > current". But this argument falls down

[PATCH] Retry acquiring reference locks for 100ms

The philosophy of reference locking has been, "if another process is changing a reference, then whatever I'm trying to do to it will probably fail anyway because my old-SHA-1 value is probably no longer current". But this argument falls down if the other process has locked the reference to do