Re: Adding a no-op LOCK to mod_dav_svn

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 18:41, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> It could just be part of 'SVNAutoversioning on'. No need to create a
> whole new directive.

> The danger here is that if we always return 200 for LOCK/UNLOCK, then
> dav clients will think they've locked a resource, when they haven't.
> There's a risk that when they PUT, they'll accidentally overwrite
> somebody else's work.

> But then again, that's true with a normal, non-versioning file server
> too. So it doesn't seem like a tragedy to me. (In fact, unlike a
> normal file server, the old version isn't really gone forever!)

The tragedy is not that the clients don't have locking, but that we're
lying to them. If some clients are overly paranoid (do they actually
get anything out of obtaining a lock?), then that's sad, but we
shouldn't escalate by claiming to support a protocol feature we don't
implement.

I'm a strong -0 on this idea, very close to a -1.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 4 00:50:11 2003