--On Friday, January 03, 2003 17:58:59 -0600 Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman@collab.net> wrote:
> I guess it comes down to the question: it the little white lie worth
> it, if it means that all OSes can now mount repositories as
> read/write? It's a tradeoff to consider.
My concern is that we're not going to implement LOCK for many months if not
years. To me, that seems a horrible tradeoff to prevent users from using a
very useful feature *right now*. I'm not entirely happy suggesting that
mod_dav_svn should lie - that is sort of why I'd rather see it explicitly
turned on (above and beyond autoversioning).
I certainly have better things to do than implement full-blown LOCKs. I
don't think this is going to be a feature that the CollabNet guys are going
to write for 1.0, either. Everyone is pretty much agreed that we should do
LOCKs the right way, but no one has been (so far) willing to write the code.
If I thought we'd realistically have LOCK support in a month, I wouldn't
have proposed this. But, I don't see that happening. So, I'd hope that
people who are saying -0.95 are volunteering for writing LOCK right now.
You don't get to veto something without proposing to help devise an
alternative. =)
This approach can be done now, and I volunteer to write it. Yet, I won't
volunteer to do the full LOCK implementation right now. (I'd much rather
spend the bulk of my time that I can devote to SVN thinking about #773.)
And, I agree with Sussman - the result of someone trampling over a no-op
LOCK isn't a big deal because it is versioned. That certainly wasn't the
expectation with the original LOCK method. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 4 01:24:10 2003