Understood -- I hope I never see an need to run this -- I'd look long, and hard before I did. In case anybody is perceiving my interest in subverting POSIX locking as implied embracing of subverting POSIX locking: I'm am not condoning this.
-bch On 2/5/15, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/5/15, bch <[email protected]> wrote: >> Its even better -- the Remote Machine is a cluster of machines sharing >> disk. I solved the immediate problem -- however this raises a >> question: >> >> Is there a --ignore-advisory-locks switch to fossil, or can we (The >> List) have a discussion about this ? >> > > The option is > > --vfs unix-none > --vfs unix-dotfile > --vfs unix-posix > > Etc. You can also do > > export FOSSIL_VFS unix-none > > Note that if you set unix-none, and then you get to instances of > Fossil running on the same repository at the same time (which can > easily happen if Fossil is running as a server on the machine) then > you risk corrupting the database file and losing content. The same > kind of disaster can happen if you get two versions of Fossil running > at the same time and using different locking protocols. YOU HAVE BEEN > WARNED. NO TEARS! > -- > D. Richard Hipp > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
