Hey:
Is there slick way to force this to happen?
i.e. hold up a commit while another update is started.
I'm assuming you (do/will) have a test for this particular issue. I'm guessing I
could just use a debugger to set a break point in the client or something to that
affect.
gat
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:32:06AM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > "Glenn A. Thompson" <gthompson@cdr.net> writes:
> > > Ouch! My brain can't handle that.
> > >
> > > What series of events causes this? Is it branches that have nodes that have
> > > branches?
> >
> > When two txns (commits in progress) both need to change a node. There's
> > no way to know which one will finish first and therefore commit first.
> > The second txn to initiate the change process gets the branch ID, but
> > it may well be the first to commit. In fact, if something gets
> > interrupted, the non-branch ID may never get committed at all.
> >
> > As you can imagine, this happens more often to directory nodes nearer
> > the top of the tree.
>
> Especially when you realize that 'svn update' creates a transaction (or
> two!) on the server. Those can easily interfere with a commit in progress.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 8 02:14:45 2002