Ben,
thanks for your reply. I was aware of the potential consistency
problem, that'd occur, if sombody "did an 'svn update' to r90 during
that two-minute window". Thus I'd proposed to allow it only, if there
was no read access meanwhile.
However, you're right. Branching is an alternative!
Regards,
Holger
Quoting Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@red-bean.com>:
> Unfortunately, this proposal goes against a fundamental design
> principle of subversion -- tha revisions are immutable.
>
> Suppose you commit revision 90, and then do a 'amendatory' commit to
> revision 90 a couple of minutes later. But suppose somebody else did
> an 'svn update' to r90 during that two-minute window. Now their
> client has a different definition of r90 than somebody who runs 'svn
> update' *after* the ammendatory commit. The former working copy is
> going to get a big checksum error when the try to update to r91 later
> on.
>
> If you're really worried about having the code always be in 'perfect'
> state, then use branches. That's what they're for. Let the trunk be
> unstable, and then port ranges of commits to a 'stable' branch
> whenever the trunk is consistent. This guarantees that the branch
> will *always* be stable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 14 18:47:07 2006