On Mar 30, 2005, at 7:52 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Is it consensus?
>
> It makes sense to me.
>
> When ghudson suggested this last week, I sent a post where I agreed and
> gave some reasons. One of my reasons was that if I have file://
> access to
> a repository then that typically means I can also use svnadmin.
> Wouldn't
> that give me the ability to break a lock anyway? My point being that
> this
> extreme edge case of a lock being ignored was not really that big of a
> deal. People that care about enforcing rules and access rights should
> not
> be using file:// access anyway.
>
The problem isn't about authorization; it's about people wasting time.
The scenario we were getting all tizzied about was the idea that I
might lock a binary file, spend hours working on it, then somebody with
a statically-linked 1.1 client uses file:/// and "accidentally" ignores
the lock, committing unmergable changes.
But, as Karl said, it seems best to simply document/warn about this
scenario, rather than go through crazy coding contortions and/or force
annoying upgrade procedures on the majority of sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 31 06:57:27 2005