Re: Locking consensus(es) so far

--On Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:16 PM -0400 Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman@red-bean.com> wrote:

> I'll work to clarify the doc. What I'm proposing is this:
>
> * user hijacks a read-only 'svn:needs-lock' file, edits it
> * user tries to commit, gets error: "you need a lock!"
> * user tries to lock, gets error: "you need to update!"
> * user runs 'svn up':
> A. if file is mergeable, merge it.
> B. if file is unmergable, don't produce conflict, just back up repos
> version.

Sure. Sounds good.

> So I *do* agree with you, regarding scenario (A) above. The deal is,
> scenario (A) isn't very likely to happen. If the file were mergeable,
> why did the admin put an 'svn:needs-lock' property on it? ;-)

As I've pointed out earlier, lots of reasons. It's a file that could have
a lot of contention or needs to be modified in such a way to ensure no two
people commit to it at the same time. But, I wouldn't assume that
svn:needs-lock (or must-lock) is only set on unmergable files. -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 13 23:25:32 2004