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

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

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2005-03-25 15:31:38 CET

On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 08:27, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2005, at 1:14 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > caching data about *other* people's locks in the working copy, I would

> Huh? That's not true at all.

My apologies. I reviewed the thread kind of quickly and came to the
wrong conclusion, I guess. (And then I went back and read it again, and
still came to the wrong conclusion.)

Information about your own locks may become stale if somebody breaks
your lock, but that's a somewhat extraordinary circumstance, so it
doesn't bother me. (Especially since, unlike last-author and
last-changed-date information, we have a mechanism for finding out about
broken locks during "svn update".)

I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the cached information
should include the lock reason and lock author. It seems unnecessary to
me, but it also doesn't seem excessively costly.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 25 15:36:37 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.