[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: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2004-10-18 14:39:21 CEST

On Oct 18, 2004, at 7:17 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> You solve the non-techie problem simply by requiring locks on all
> files in the repository by default, which means that a hijack can't
> happen because the potential perpetrator won't be able to commit an
> unlocked file (without breaking the lock, which you don't let
> non-techies do anyway).


I've already capitulated to the majority, on this topic. But I think
you have a misconception of what "hijacked file" means, as described in
the ui document. It doesn't mean, "commit an unlocked file". It
means, "somebody's tool accidentally ignored the read-only flag,
allowed someone to make edits, and now they have to deal with merging
before getting a proper lock to commit." There's only one SCM system
in the universe that can utterly prevent a hijack: Clearcase dynamic
views. No tool can circumvent the read-only bit on a dynamic view.
:-) This is discussed in the ui doc as well.

Just trying to make sure we've all got the same definitions here...

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 18 14:40:55 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.