[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] "svn commit" performance

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2003-07-11 01:46:06 CEST

Chia-liang Kao <clkao@clkao.org> writes:

> So is it safe for an access baton just to ignore the already locked
> descendant items for the current tree locking?

Don't ignore them, but use them if they are already locked. In most
places the wc code is written so that it "knows" whether a directory
is locked or not, and errors occur if it attempts to lock something
twice or if it attempts use a lock that does not exist. I think this
is the correct behaviour in general, but for this particular function
I propose to relax it.

> this would assume that
> locks are shared within an access batons, which i'm not yet sure what
> the design was.

There is a one-to-one relation between access batons and locks (for
write access anyway).

> But It shouldn't be hard if it's the case. Otherwise
> there should be some other mechanism resolving this?

I don't understand the question.

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 11 01:47:02 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.