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

Re: [PATCH] "svn up" should not tree lock the anchor unless it's wc root

From: <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-07-14 16:10:20 CEST

Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:

> >> Why is it necessary to check the node kind of path? The original code
> >> didn't do that.
> >
> > because it failed update_test#14 (update_deleted_missing_dir) without the
> > check. It seems in the case update would fail because it assumes other
> > directory under anchor is locked. so I just special-cased it to fallback the
> > original behavior - treelock the anchor.
> I don't like it, it all looks a bit ad-hoc. Do other people think we
> should be applying patches like this? The patches probably work (I
> haven't tried them) and so solve the problem Chia-liang Kao is having.
> It's just that if the locking is going to be changed I'd prefer code
> that is "more elegant", for some value of "elegant".

I'm certainly opposed to this patch doing things this way, but I'm not
sufficiently horrified to lump this nice volunteer's work into the
"patches like this" Category o' Doom. :-)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 14 16:11:19 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.