[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: Frank Compagner <frank_at_compagner.com>
Date: 2004-10-14 02:40:33 CEST

Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:

> 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.
>
> -Fitz

Agreed, I see no reason why lock-messages should be any different from
commit-messages, consistency is always a good idea. This is actually
more or less how our current (proprietary) SCM works; the (gui-)client
will ask for a lock message by default, but you can configure it to
never ask for this, in which case it will simply enter an empty message.

Frank Compagner

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 14 02:40:53 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.