Re: Locking UI comments

On Oct 13, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:

> 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 svn: foo.doc is out-of-date, please update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!

As do I.

On Oct 13, 2004, at 9:23 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:

> I do not really understand the objections here. If you have to have
> an up
> to date file in order to lock it, and we are trying to make this easy
> for
> "users", then why shouldn't svn lock update the file automatically?

Because it couples unrelated operations and may have unexpected results
for the user.

Committing a delete of an out of date file returns an error. I see no
reason why trying to acquire a lock on an out of date file should do
the same.

Jim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 13 18:00:57 2004