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

Re: Locking UI comments

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-10-13 17:43:43 CEST

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 svn: foo.doc is out-of-date, please update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locking, so that they end up locking an out-of-date file.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

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.