On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 12:04, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > I think doing that can also simplify the logic. If there is a target,
> > lock the anchor non-recursively and then lock the target (recursively or
> > not, as specified). If there is no target, lock the anchor recursively
> > or not as specified. That's fewer cases than your patch has.
>
> That was imprecise and missed the subtlety that we need to lock the
> subdirs for a non-recursive status. But there's still no need to
> consider more cases than I specified. So, to be more precise:
>
> If there is a separate anchor and target:
> Lock the anchor with depth 0
> Lock the target with depth (recursive ? -1 : 1)
> Else
> Lock the anchor with depth (recursive ? -1 : 1)
>
> No need to consider whether the target is a file or anything like that.
>
>
Hmmm... Seems like I have to check and only lock target if it is
non-empty *and* a directory. Locking a file in a locked directory gives an
wc locked error.
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 11 22:55:28 2004