Re: Locking branch has been merged [Re: svn commit: r13571]

On Mar 24, 2005, at 9:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
> This continues to be a concern for locking stuffs, too, where a
> working copy might claim that a lock is held on a given resource, but
> in truth, that lock could have been broken a week ago and the working
> copy just be out of date.
>

That's not an oversight, that's a predicted scenario with code paths to
compensate. That's the reason tokens are reported during 'svn update':
  so updates can remove "defunct" tokens.

But in the larger picture, there *is* a general problem with caching
mutable server metadata, situations we haven't planned for. The
svn:date and svn:author revprops can change, and unless a file is an
exact target of an update, there's no way its cache of these things
will ever be synchronized. The same is true for the cached
lock-comment. Are these things to worry about? Should we file a bug?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 25 04:18:36 2005