Preliminary Suggestion For Atomic Transactions

[Dag Wieers]

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Jeff Pitman wrote:

> On Thursday 06 January 2005 07:04, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> > I have no objection to the option, just to the name - don't call
> > things atomic if they aren't. Call it delayed-rename, or whatever.
> 
> How about --rename-after?

I'd rather see it called something like --near-atomic or something else 
abstract (that is explained in the manual), instead of some action that 
may be mis-interpreted.

But I'm more interested to know if something like this is acceptable to 
get included or not. Not this patch specifically, but the same 
functionality.

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]