On 2004-12-15 07:38-0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:22 AM, Branko ??ibej 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.
> >
+1
>
> 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...
BR, Jani
--
Jani Averbach
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 15 15:32:15 2004