On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:23:01PM -0600, Michael W Thelen wrote:
> * C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> [2004-05-21 10:42]:
> > To date, I don't know if anyone has considered the ability to lock
> > directories -- I guess I can imagine it being useful as a shortcut for
> > locking many files, but I think it's probably overkill.
>
> I guess it depends on what problem is meant to be solved by exclusive
> locks. The example always cited is binary files that are unmergeable,
> and if that's the problem that exclusive locking aims to solve, then the
> ability to lock directories may be overkill. But are there cases where
> users may want to lock a directory itself, other than as a shortcut for
> locking lots of files? If so, then certainly it's not overkill.
I'm sure there will be a few groans at this one, but...
The ability to lock directories would be great for some Mac OS X-isms
- like the fact that the native development environment stores its
project information in a directory (FooProject.xcode) with assorted
files in that directory that sometimes get changed in concert
(effectively meaning that the entire directory should be treated as
one big binary file).
.rtfd bundles, .nibs, etc., would all benefit from this as well.
.chris
PS: It's not quite issue 707, but it's related... ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 22 22:38:17 2004