Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] FEATURE PLAN: two stage commit

[Jason McCarty]

Tom Lord wrote:
>     > Anyway, hopefully the above will contribute in some way.
> 
> Of course.  It helps to get "many eyeballs" on the design before it's
> finalized.  In this case, it got me to remember and write down why I
> decided that a commit was needed to kill a composite transaction
> rather than just a `tla lock-revision --break'.

Something I should have mentioned before then: If I understand
correctly, if B, C, ... are half-committed and dependant on A, one way
of breaking the lock on B is to commit A', which makes the commit of A
fail, thus causing B, C, ... to be uncommitted. What if the person who
wants to break the lock on B doesn't have permission to commit A'?
Further, whose responsibility is it to actually remove the half-
committed B, C, ... when it's discovered that committing A must fail
(especially if the process committing A dies in the middle of things)?

-- 
Jason McCarty <address@hidden>