On 06/20/2013 07:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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...?
"main" as opposed to "submodule". > 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? No, the scenario would be that a git process wants to change a reference in a submodule directly, as opposed to starting another git process within the submodule, as I believe is done now. Maybe it's too far-fetched even to consider... Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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