Michael Haggerty <mhag...@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? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html