On Dec 12, 2007 9:31 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > We will make our commits > in two CVS invocations, but since CVS isn't atomic _anyway_, we > shouldn't mind losing the atomicity. Quick note -- I used to understand that cvs was not atomic, but reading the on-the-wire protocol has taught me otherwise. Modern versions of cvs are actually quite atomic-ish -- the protocol expects the client to give all the relevant data to the server, and then say "yep, that was all", and only _then_ the server does its commit. So if the client dies or cancels along the way, nothing ever happens on the server side. Still, I suspect that the _server_ is not atomic, so if the server process dies or finds a problem along the way, you could end up with a half-commit in the repository, and maybe some hosed ,v files. IOWs, the protocol *is* atomic, and this patch does make things slightly more brittle. Perhaps require an option to be set before we do this? m - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
