RE: Atomicity of locks and needs-lock

> > Actually, you can lock files even if they don't have needs-lock.
>
> Yeah ok, you can.
> Only it's extremely dumb to do that, that's what I meant.

Apparently, that is debatable.
Either way, doesn't matter to the case I want to focus on:

If a user locks a file, and the file doesn't have needs-lock, all other
users' clients should treat that file in some ways similar as if it had
the needs-lock property.

In particular, the file should become read-only, and in the gui, change
the icon to gray.

This has several advantages. First, to reasonable extents, it prevents
users from accidentally working on a file that someone else has locked.
Second, if you click on File --> Properties, you can see who, when, and
why the file was locked.

In order to support this behavior, there must be information in the
entries file that says the file was locked by another user, who, when,
and why.

At present, when you click on File --> Properties, there is a field for
"Lock Owner" but this field is always blank because there is no ability
to store the information locally.

I am asking here, if there is any reason against local storing the
remote lock information. In the same way that we locally store the
local lock info, and the way we locally store the "needs-lock" property.

...

If there aren't any further objections, I'd like to know how to get this
process started. Is there an approval process? If it makes sense to
start working on it, I'm no great programmer so I'd rather if some
experienced developer has interest. But if needs be, I'll give it a
try. I would certainly need to be directed toward some documentation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 29 23:19:31 2006