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

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 somebody even *attempts* to lock an out-of-date wc file.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
wanted.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org