Request to terminate currently ongoing downloads and jump to the bumped file
incoming in 3, 2, 1.
Also, has a slightly strange effect where we pop a job off the queue, but
the copyChannel is still busy and blocks, though it gets moved to the
progress slice in the jobqueue, and looks like it's in progress which it isn't
as it's waiting to be picked up from the copyChan.
As a result, the progress emitter doesn't register on the task, and hence the file
doesn't have a progress bar, but cannot be replaced by a bump.
I guess I can fix progress bar issue by moving the progressEmiter.Register just
before passing the file to the copyChan, but then we are back to the initial
problem of a file with a progress bar, but no progress happening as it's stuck
on write to copyChan
I checked if there is a way to check for channel writeability (before popping)
but got struck by lightning just for bringing the idea up in #go-nuts.
My ideal scenario would be to check if copyChan is writeable, pop job from the
queue and shove it down handleFile. This way jobs would stay in the queue while
they cannot be handled, meaning that the `Bump` could bring your file up higher.
With this change we accept updates for ignored files from other devices,
and check the ignore patterns at pull time. When we detect that the
ignore patterns have changed we do a full check of files that we might
now need to pull.
This uses persistent Matcher objects that can reload their content and
provide a hash string that can be used to check if it's changed. The
cache is local to each Matcher object instead of kept globally.
Obviously needs Go 1.4 to go back in.
I am still open to doing fix-up's on rescan interval on Windows, which
would still allow getting rid of all the Windows code.
Frankly, we could just defer creations of links (like we defer deletions of files)
in hopes that the target gets created, and if it doesn't, well tough luck, you'll
get a file symlink.
To be honest, nobody would even notice this 'issue' as I am sure nobody on
Windows uses symlinks.
But at the same time, this ugly code is hidden away in some creppy file in
it's own module far far away, and the interface that it exports is fine'ish,
so I wouldn't mind keeping it as it is.
