On Apr 12, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 22:33, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> Hmm. Interesting point! I would say that in order to lock a file in a
>> working copy, the working copy should *have* to be up to date. I
>> can't
>> recall going over this case, but it seems like requiring an up-to-date
>> wc is The Right Thing To Do.
>
> We went over this at great length early on. Karl wanted "svn lock
> filename" to update the file; other people (including me) wanted it to
> simply fail if the file wasn't up to date. I believe my side won the
> argument, and the planned machinery was that svn_ra_lock() would take a
> file version number (optional) so that the server could verify that the
> file is up to date when locking it. I don't know how we got
> off-course.
Ah yes! Now I remember the debate, and yes, we must have gotten
off-course somewhere.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 13 04:57:41 2005