On 2020/02/23 15:54:54, hanwenn wrote: > I think this is worth it because it simplifies the build system, and puts the > locking in the place where we actually access the resource.
Let me disagree: It complicates lilypond-book with something that no (external) user of the script cares about. So IMHO adding brittle locking requires more justification than that. > I take your point about dropped files; the best would be fcntl locks, but I am > worried that they might not be supported on windows. Would you know? > > Maybe we can just use fcntl locks on unix, and Windows users should just not try > to run parallel lp-book invocations. Can we please first take a step back and see how much benefit there actually is? https://codereview.appspot.com/555360043/
