Hi,
> I don't suppose this would be possible without hacking the
> code, right?
> Reason I'm asking is simplicity and clearness in the message.
> eg. is when an attempt to lock fails for file is already
> locked by other user
> why bother users with the path to file on a remote resource?
> they
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:44:03AM +0100, lejeczek wrote:
> hi users
> I don't suppose this would be possible without hacking the code, right?
> Reason I'm asking is simplicity and clearness in the message.
> eg. is when an attempt to lock fails for file is already locked by other
> user
> why both
hi users
I don't suppose this would be possible without hacking the
code, right?
Reason I'm asking is simplicity and clearness in the message.
eg. is when an attempt to lock fails for file is already
locked by other user
why bother users with the path to file on a remote resource?
they usually
