Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org> writes:
> 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. =)
I don't know where that rule came from, but I've certainly never heard
of it before. What's being vetoed, or anyway strongly objected to, is
the proposal that we deliberately misimplement a part of the DAV
standard.
And the alternative proposal is: don't do that :-).
> 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.
No -- the other result people expect is lockout, that is, the
inability to commit until the lock is removed. It's a form of
notification that many users depend on. If we lie about locks, we'll
mess that up.
Maybe the MacOS X client shouldn't be locking when it doesn't need to?
But I don't know what their justification was, or how open they would
be to persuasion. Have you asked them?
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 4 01:38:15 2003