From owner-freebsd-stable  Fri Jun  7 23:47:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-stable
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA18044
          for stable-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA18034
          for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id XAA05690; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:41:31 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199606080641.XAA05690@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view
To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:41:31 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@sri.MT.net, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199606080618.AAA03027@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 8, 96 00:18:47 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > If "committer #1" checks in changes to modules A, B, C, and Q,
> > and "committer #2" cheks in changes to modules X, Y, Z, and Q,
> > and there is a cumulative conflict, who is at fault if their
> > access was not serialized?
> > 
> > Answer: the tools.
> 
> Problem:  99.9% of the time no-one steps on anyone else's code.  So
> again this is a NON-ISSUE.

Then you argument against single writer locks is no longer valid.

Let us address your agument against reader locks: is it the fact
that the checkout will be internally consistent, with no partial
checkins, that you don't like?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.