> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@apache.org]
>
> 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. =)
>
Heh. If only that were actually true. I was kind of surprised when Ben
started writing the auto-versioning code precisely because it's utterly
useless without a full-blown working LOCK.
So, I'm not so hot about supporting an Apache directive that makes LOCK
work but meaningless. However, I wouldn't mind so much #if 0'ing out a
useless LOCK verb. That way developers who know what they're doing can
suffer their own trama from doing such a thing. I say this so that folks
who want to do this work can do it and have it merged in. The choice of
#if 0 was very specific btw, I don't want the threshold to running this
code to be just adding a -DUSELESS_LOCK flag to building Subversion, the
threshold should be much higher.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 4 01:32:28 2003