Re: svn commit: r13308 - branches/locking/subversion/libsvn_fs_base

"Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:

> A problem with being able to lock schedule add files is that it might make
> people disappointed. If the user Hulda schedule-adds a path, then locks it
> and starts working. Then Hildur (another Swedish user) schedule-ads the
> same pathname in her WC and starts working.

If she tried to lock she would see the conflict. OK, she is allowed
to work without a lock, but it's her choice.

> Then, Hulda commits her add.

Doesn't matter, the lock means Hildur will get a conflict even without
this commit.

> Hildur tries to commit and gets a conflict and has wasted her time. OK;
> this will happen without being able to lock schedule-add files. The
> problem is that we can't enforce the locking like we can with
> svn:needs-lock. So it wouldn't prevent what locks are intended to prevent,
> wasted work on unmergable files.

We don't get automatic enforcing of svn:needs-lock, the locks
themselves still work. If it really bothers you then use a client
that automatically attempts to lock all schedule add files, then the
conflict will get detected before any work is done.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org