[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: Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fitz_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-10-13 22:33:26 CEST

On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 15:30, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > 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.
> I would prefer to have it the other way around, like we do with log
> messages. I've actually worked on a system that used similar messages
> and they are useful. If we're going to have locks I'd like to encourage
> people to have meaningful messages associated with them, just as we
> encourage meaningful log messages.

I actually like Ben's idea.

However, I could be persuaded that lock-messages behave the same way
that commit messages do--that is, you can always do

    svn lock -m "" some/path/to/foo.c

if you don't want a log message.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 13 22:33:45 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.