Re: Atomicity of locks and needs-lock

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> wrote:
>
>> > That is, you would want the needs-lock to have made it out to the
>> > rest of the repository users before a lock is obtained.
>>
>> So, that's a pretty awkward way to work - set a property, _then_
>> commit, _then_ lock the file, _then_ start working on your new feature,
>> _then_ remove the property, _then_ commit your changes. Is that really
>> your recommendation to anyone who wishes to make a
>> hard-to-merge-against change to a file?
>
> This thread rather astounds me. I see so many people misunderstanding
> this feature, I don't know what to say.
>
> There are two totally independent "needs" here which must be satisfied.

[...]

No need to repeat it - Ben was much better than I in expressing this
thought. (And I fully agree with his posting - I just did not seem to
come up with the correct angle to write it myself...)

-- 
Michael Sinz                     Technology and Engineering Director/Consultant
"Starting Startups"                                mailto:michael.sinz@sinz.org
My place on the web                            http://www.sinz.org/Michael.Sinz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org