Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows why Capistrano doesn't use an atomic rename(2) operation (say, a mv) to replace the current symlink. As it is, it seems to remove the symlink and, if successful doing so, create the new one in the same place. I'm worried that this could leave a gap of a fair few cycles where the symlink doesn't exist at all, and requests fail. In other words, it seems to use the shell for two consecutive operations that should really be a single as-quick-as-possible operation; preferably one where the current symlink is always readable and exists.
Regards, Dominic -- * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Capistrano" group. * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en
