On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> John Szakmeister wrote:
>
>> I withdraw my objection. We should definitely release the locks. It
>> seems more intuitive for the users. While I may not consider having
>> a lock to be justification enough to consider it part of the commit
>> and release it, I can see many users thinking it is.
>>
> O.K., unlock the file, but only if it's an explicit target (I count
> any file in a subtree of a directory target to be explicit fo this
> case).
>
> However, then "svn st" must always show files that the WC thinks are
> locked, and these files should be listed in the log template along
> with the modified ones.
>
So essentially, it sounds like people want the client's wc
commit-crawling algorithm to consider a locked-file a "committable"
candidate, just like a modified item or schedule-add/delete item.
If so, I agree with brane. 'svn st' will list a locked file as
"interesting', whether or not it's been edited (which we were planning
to do anyway), and if the crawler harvests the locked file as a
"committable", then it should automatically show up in $EDITOR.
But still, I'd like to hear more opinions...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 15 14:40:27 2004