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

Re: Locking UI comments

From: Mark Benedetto King <mbk_at_lowlatency.com>
Date: 2004-10-14 02:50:40 CEST

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 05:10:26PM -0700, Jack Repenning wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2004, at 4:54 PM, Mark Benedetto King wrote:
> >One thing, so we don't forget: our directory conflict check is more
> >permissive for commits than it should be for locks: an add doesn't
> >conflict on commit with unseen adds, but a lock should (IMO).
> How's that again? Are you saying "locks should conflict with locks
> more generally than adds do with adds"? Or maybe "locks should
> conflict with adds ...."? How might a lock be "unseen"?

An attempt to lock a directory should be considered out-of-date
if the WC issuing the lock request is not completely up to date.

An attempt to add to a directory is not considered out-of-date
unless the add conflicts with another (unseen) add.


This stance is predicated on my opinion that blind locks are
bad, and that a lock request should be accompanied by the
revision that the client has, so the server can determine
whether or not the client is up to date. Obviously, a blind
lock request can never be considered out of date.

Also note:

I agree that directory locking is more than we should bite off,
so the issue is moot. Count my statement as one more reason


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 14 02:50:30 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.