Yep. I did propose QTDECENT, and those files would have QTDECENT set. That's what I mean.
I don't agree with your definition for decency. It's indecent [kidding ;)] On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas <m...@endeavour.zapto.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nemo <nemo.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> i have decent servers that wait for clunk to operate on written data once >> it's complete. all octopus spoolers do that. > > Heh; when I wrote 'decent', I was recalling the old proposed QTDECENT qid > type. I didn't mean to impugn your file servers; they're probably very nice > people and if I met them, I'd should buy them a drink. > > Let's try to define 'decent' for this thread -- a decent fileserver is one > on which close()s do not have any client-visible or semantic effect other > than to invalidate the Fid that was passed to them. Lets see how many file > servers we can think of that are 'decent': fossil, kfs, ken, memfs, ... > > -- vs >
