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

Re: Locking consensus(es) so far

From: Mark Phippard <MarkP_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2004-10-13 22:12:33 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@red-bean.com> wrote on 10/13/2004 02:58:53

> Let me reiterate some agreements we seem to have reached, so far:
> - If update would produce conflict on a 'hijacked' file:
> print warning, then choose WC fulltext, backup repos fulltext.

So that I am clear, if the update could merge the changes it would, and
only if it couldn't it would create these files? I guess that is OK, bit
I am still not 100% clear why it would not just create the same files that
a merge conflict would create or why the situation is different.

> - 'svn info' shows lock-token info, and also works on URLs.
> And I'd like to suggest a compromise regarding whether or not
> lock-messages are required:
> - client never requires lock-messages, but accepts them if
> presented.
> - server doesn't require them by default, but accepts them
> if presented.
> - admin can make pre-lock hook require them.

Sounds good to me.


Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 13 22:12:59 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.