[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Locking non-existent paths. Time to discuss.

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-03-21 19:08:11 CET

On Mar 21, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 11:07, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>> LOCK nonexistentURL
>> ...commits a 0-length file, locked...
>>> PUT 0-byte-file
>> ...commits 0 more bytes to that 0-byte file... (leaving it locked)
> Can't we detect that this is a do-nothing transaction and elide the
> second commit? (I realize that this would require a special check
> inside the auto-versioning code.)

A wart on top of a wart? Is it worth it?

In my experience, the moment you turn on autoversioning, you start
getting lots of extraneous commits. Every DAV client behaves
differently, and most are not afraid of doing lots of useless writes.
They don't think there's any versioning going on, so why should they
care about the number of writes?

For example, when I drag a new file 'foo' to a DAV share is OSX Finder,
it does *5* writes: touch .foo, put data in .foo, delete .foo, touch
foo, put data in foo. That's 5 commits.

My feeling is that adding this special check isn't going to create any
noticable decrease in amount of 'noise' in the repository's history.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 21 19:09:54 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.