On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 08:05:20AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:17:13AM +0200, u+codalist-p4pg_at_chalmers.se wrote:
> > 
> > It seems that unlinking a snatched-away file leads to a conflict,
> > while possibly it shouldn't?

> I think I already downgraded the severity of unlink/unlink conflicts a
> long time ago. Strictly speaking these are conflicts, but the intent of
> the user was clearly to remove the file. However there was a bug (fixed

I meant in fact rename/unlink conflict, which is more of a conflict than
unlink/unlink - the intent is less clear in this case.
Nevertheless, I would treat "unlink a non-existent name" as no conflict
independently of whether that was another unlink or a rename which conflicts.

The bad side effect would be that you can not be sure to have deleted
a file, if you or a script may have renamed it on another client.
No big threat, I would say.

Or may be rename and unlink are already treated the same way? Then sorry.

By the way, how is say local-global conflict unlink/rename solvable,
when you are trying to rename a file which no longer exists?
Does it silently disappear (replacing so to say "rename" with "unlink")?
There seems to be no way to recover it, anyway, if its contents is not in
the local cache?

Regards
Rune