On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 15:17, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote on 10/13/2004 03:26:58 PM:
>
> > --On Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:06 PM +0100 Julian Foad
> > <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Certainly not. The "svn:lock" property was proposed as a permanent
> > > indication that this is a file that ought to be locked before working
> on it,
> > > not as the indication that it is currently locked.
> >
> > The problem is that according to WebDAV, we have to respond to the
> > lockdiscovery property on the resource in order to allow a query if
> there's an
> > outstanding lock. (This is what 'svn info' should do in order to query
> lock
> > info.) So, the question remains: does an implicit change of a live
> property
> > imply a change in our revnum? I could see it going either way. --
> justin
>
> Forgive me if I am being dense, but what would the implicit change be? I
> thought that svn:lock was just a normal property that would be set and
> managed like any other property. In other words, it would only ever be
> set/modified/removed explicitly and would up the revnum when committed.
>
> There has been a lot of conversation, so perhaps I have missed something?
I think we're once again running into the misunderstanding fostered by
the name 'svn:lock' which should be something to the effect of
"svn:this-file-must-be-locked-before-committing."
The property is part of the communication system involved in locks--it
has nothing to do with whether or not the file/path is locked.
So I would say that locking/unlocking a file does not bump the revision
number.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 13 22:26:31 2004