On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Julian Foad wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
> > John Szakmeister wrote:
> > O.K., unlock the file, but only if it's an explicit target (I count any
> > file in a subtree of a directory target to be explicit fo this case).
>
What would be an non-explicit target? The implicit "."? That would be
inconsistent. Saying "svn ci foo.c" won't commit bar.cin the same
directory. Just trying to understand what you meant here, brane.
> > However, then "svn st" must always show files that the WC thinks are
> > locked, and these files should be listed in the log template along with
> > the modified ones.
>
> I hadn't thought of that aspect, but I completely agree with you. (It's a pity
> that "status" already uses "L" for a different type of lock. We'll just have
> to find a way to distinguish these new locks.)
>
Yes. This terminology problem is even apparent in the code. The WC already
talks about locking. Suggestions welcome. Also, I have been planning to
start another thread about how to compatibly extend svn st and other
output for locking. So people can actually start thinking about that:-)
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 15 18:51:54 2004