On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Jani Averbach wrote:
> 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
>
Sounds like we will go with locked files being committables in the sense
that they get unlocked if the commit unlocks at all. Some the commit item
harvesting will fetch locks everywhere and give to the server, including
descending into deleted subdirectories.
Thanks for the input,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 15 18:47:16 2004