Conversation
mvorisek
force-pushed
the
more_explicit_lock_prefix
branch
from
de0c6a8 to
fc05186
Compare
mvorisek
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
This was referenced Dec 6, 2024
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
replace #40
More specific lock prefix is vital to reduce potential collision with other libs in theory and to ease understanding of stored keys.
BC break: Locks before upgrade are not honored after upgrade!
If locks before upgrade are needed to be honored, rename them manually.