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

Re: [locking] out-of-dateness checking during lock

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2004-12-04 19:11:37 CET

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 11:14, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> * I'm worried that if an admin has post-lock and post-unlock hook
>> scripts, there's going to be 2 useless emails generated whenever
>> somebody even *attempts* to lock an out-of-date wc file.
> We can make this case much less common by checking for out-of-dateness,
> grabbing the lock, checking again, and releasing the lock if the second
> test fails.
>> I know that the idea of 'svn lock' automatically doing updates was shot
>> down weeks ago, with people screaming about how bad it is to mix
>> subcommand concepts together. But now it seems the only alternative is
>> to make the 'svn lock' command behave a bit schitzo: "lock the file...
>> oh wait, nevermind, unlock it!" Is that behavior the lesser of two
>> evils?
> Yes, by a mile.

Why do we have to accept either option? Why not pass a revision and
have the fs reject the request if the lock is not HEAD? We could
make it optional to allow clients to lock HEAD unconditionally if

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 4 19:13:06 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.