Philipp wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Dez 2002, Peter Davis wrote:
>
>
>
>>Okay, I think I understand. Instead of simply having the commit fail and then
>>running "svn update" (or "svn merge") and resolving the conflicts in your
>>working copy, you want it to create a special branch so that the commit still
>>succeeds, but isn't actually merged into the HEAD tree. That's an
>>interesting concept.
>>
>>
>
>looking from the DAV point of view, i just found another alternative
>interpretation, which should be roughly compatible with standard
>subversion commit semantics:
>
>basically a failed commit is an unfinished transaction, which violates
>repository policy (e.g. not the branch's head was used as the base).
>Now instead of forcing a transaction rollback now, if we allow the
>client to keep the transaction open and do further work on it, we
>suddenly do have "microbranches" for free. (User can e.g. apply
>HEAD-2:HEAD, with manual merging where necessary, and then try the
>commit again.)
>
>Can anybody see where i'm trying to get at and if this would be useful ?
>
Oooh, someone else has thought of long-lived transactions. Welcome to
the club. :-)
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 14 04:04:06 2002