On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, 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 somebody even *attempts* to lock an out-of-date wc file.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.
>
I am tempted to ask you to forget my previous mail because I have my
children in my house, so I am kind of "baby sitting", but I don't:-)
Seriously, I think the atomic behaviour would be ideal, but the above is a
good comprmise. It will require at least three round-trips, but that might
be OK.
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 4 19:50:41 2004