Re: [PATCH] Allow transparent slaves to handle REPORT?

On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>> So aren't we really talking about the difference between an "svn
>> lock" command that fails locally or remotely?
>
> Eh, sort of - but I'm not quite clear on your question. -- justin

I originally thought, and you seemed to confirm, that users following
the proper user-level protocol (lock-before-change) could sometimes
end up making concurrent changes. That would be bad.

But I now realize that lock-before-change is still safe, so I'm much
less concerned.

It occurs to me that the lock-that-gets-blocked now has two failure
modes:

(1) your local replica already knows someone else has the lock
(2) your local replica is momentarily clueless, but by the time the
lock request gets to the master it gets refused because you fell
through the timing window

If indeed there's potential for two different failure modes from what
to the user level is the same problem, then I was sort of implying
that they should result in the same error message.

-==-
Jack Repenning
Chief Technology Officer
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
office: +1 650.228.2562
mobile: +1 408.835.8090
raindance: +1 877.326.2337, x844.7461
aim: jackrepenning
skype: jrepenning

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 12 23:43:29 2007