Re: Strict long transactions?

Christian Andersson <chrisand@cs.lth.se> writes:
> Subversion seems always to accept Bob's commit without a prior update, and I
> therefore have a few questions:
>
> 1. Am I wrong?

Yes.

If CVS local really behaves the way you describe, it's a bug. But I
find it hard to believe that no one would have noticed this by now.

> If no,
> 2. Is this behavior a bug, or is it intentional?

Intentional.

> If intentional
> 3. Why?

Both to be compatible with CVS, and because we think it's useful to
not enforce strict updating, so people can retain fine control over
the state of their working copy while still being able to commit. In
practice, few problems seem to arise from this model (since it's the
CVS model too, there's a *lot* of practice to draw on).

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 6 17:16:55 2002