> I don't think there's any reason to expect people to only lock files
> that needs-lock.
I agree, that's the whole problem.
> Users want (on a regular basis) to simply lock a file so nobody else
> will work on it at the same time. Because they don't trust automatic
> merge, and they don't want to merge it manually.
I understand that, and that's *exactly* why we should have the warning. You are living proof.
Why? Because it does not work the way you describe it. You can't prevent anyone to work on a file at the same time as you do by using only locks.
If you lock a file that lacks the svn:needs-lock property, there is absolutely nothing that prevents other users from editing that file. They will be stopped (and notified) first at commit-time. Bad-bad-bad.
Please do read the "Locking"-chapter of the subversion book one more time, and specially the section "Lock Communication":
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.locking.html#svn.advanced.locking.lock-communication
> I think people don't want to use needs-lock all over the place, but they
> do occasionally want to lock files.
Then maybe you should look elsewhere for your versioning needs, as Subversion currently does not safely support it.
Hans-Emil
Received on Thu Apr 27 15:17:45 2006