[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Locking consensus(es) so far

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2004-10-15 01:44:52 CEST

Garrett Rooney wrote:

> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>> And I'd like to suggest a compromise regarding whether or not
>> lock-messages are required:
>>
>> - client never requires lock-messages, but accepts them if
>> presented.
>> - server doesn't require them by default, but accepts them
>> if presented.
>> - admin can make pre-lock hook require them.
>
>
> I would prefer to have it the other way around, like we do with log
> messages. I've actually worked on a system that used similar messages
> and they are useful. If we're going to have locks I'd like to
> encourage people to have meaningful messages associated with them,
> just as we encourage meaningful log messages.

The difference between a lock note and a log message is that the first
is transient, while the second is a historic record. In the long run,
nobody cares if you let the world know what you intend to do when you
locked a file three years ago, but they definitely want an explanation
of your commit in the record.

For me, the best reason for a lock note is to help /me/ remember why a
locked a file. :-) Of course, making lock notes enforceable is all good.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 15 01:45:11 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.