[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: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2004-12-04 19:26:56 CET

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2004, at 10:35 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
>> 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 somebody even *attempts* to lock an out-of-date wc file.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'm sold. This means the 'schitzo' behavior of aquiring/releasing the
> lock will only happen in -extremely- rare circumstances.
> lundblad: do you agree? If so, I think we've got a good description
> of svn_client_lock(). Go for it.

What about Philip's suggestion?:

| 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.

IMO, this is more elegant.

Also, won't the test-lock-test approach require multiple network roundtrips?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 4 19:28:13 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.