Re: svn commit: r13308 - branches/locking/subversion/libsvn_fs_base

On Mar 8, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
>
> Scenario 1
> working copy A: create directory 'foo'
> lock 'foo/bar'
> working copy B: create directory 'foo'
> commit 'foo' => fails because 'foo/bar' is locked
>
> Scenario 2
> working copy A: create directory 'foo'
> lock 'foo/bar'
> working copy B: create file 'foo'
> commit 'foo' => succeeds
>
> I don't think it's sensible for one of those commits to succeed and
> one to fail.
>

At the moment, the client has zero support for locking nonexistent
paths; it doesn't even allow locking of URLs yet.

But your scenarios still make sense to me: replace your "working copy
A" text with "random DAV client", and they're quite possible.

So Mike, maybe we need to do both the non-recursive and recursive
checks for deleted *and* added objects.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 8 22:02:12 2005