Re: Locking UI comments

On Oct 13, 2004, at 11:33 AM, Philip Martin wrote:

> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
>
>> $ svn lock foo.doc
>
> Result is either an error
>
> svn: foo.doc is out-of-date, please update
>
> or success which means foo.doc is up-to-date. Once we have a lock it
> will remain up-to-date.

Aha, this is a different strategy. Rather than make 'svn lock' do an
automatic update, you're suggesting that it *require* that an update
happen first? I like it!

>
>> ### edit
>> $ svn commit foo.c
>> svn: sorry, you need to 'svn up'
>
> It was up-to-date when we took a lock, so how does this happen?
> Did somebody break our lock? How will having lock run update help?
>

I was describing what might happen in a world where 'lock' and 'update'
are separate actions, and have no mutual requirement or dependence at
all. My fear is that in such a world, users forget to 'update' before
locking, so that they end up locking an out-of-date file.

But your recommendation above fixes that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 13 17:44:01 2004