Brian Warner <[email protected]> writes: > On 3/17/12 3:31 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> That makes sense, but it would be really nice if the repair process on a >> directory that has 9 of the 10 shares it should would result in placing >> a copy of the missing share without incrementing the version; I find >> that's a huge source of churn in a grid with mostly-present nodes >> (e.g. pubgrid). My sense is that's the biggest win in repair stability, >> and removes most of the trouble. > > Oh, yeah, that's definitely a great idea. Didn't we have a ticket about > that? I couldn't see anything on the list[1] that specifically mentioned it.
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1209 _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
