[Locking] commits and unlock (revisited)

I'd like to revisit the decision that came out of the "commit and
unlock" discussion in December (Full thread here
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2004-12/0598.shtml).

The outcome of that thread was that 'svn commit' will unlock any file
that is specified as a target to 'svn commit' (including children of
directories).

I've read through the thread, and I can't say that I saw a clear
comparison of the pros and cons of the various options presented, so
I'd like to open up this can of worms again and do some "information
gathering and aggregation."

The three options for *default* behavior that were presented are:

  a) Upon commit, unlock all locked files in TARGETS

  PROS: - Helps when you forget to unlock files when you're done with
          them.

  CONS: - If you want to make multiple commits to a file without
          releasing a lock, you need to pass --no-unlock when
          committing.
  
  b) Upon commit, unlock SOME locked files in TARGETS

  PROS: - Makes it easier to divide separate commits into changesets.

  CONS: - YASSC (Yet Another Subversion Special Case).
        - Violates KISS.

  c) Upon commit, unlock nothing

  PROS: - Avoids possible conflicts in unmergeable files that are left
          unlocked (although svn:needs-lock alleviates this somewhat).
        - Doesn't overload commit with locking behaviors.

  CONS: - You can forget that they you have files locked and prevent
          others from editing those files.

Can interested parties please contribute more pros and cons to this
list? I'll summarize the discussion and post the total pros and cons
to the list.

-Fitz

PS: I'm in favor of C.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 22 22:29:52 2005