Re: svn commit: r14031 - trunk/subversion/clients/cmdline

--On Monday, April 11, 2005 4:21 PM -0500 kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Anyway, +1 on "svn:wants-lock".

I'm against changing the name away from 'svn:needs-lock' as we can find
issues no matter what the name is. I think we've entered bikeshed land
myself. =)

I do think wants-lock is a bit more confusing to explain than needs-lock.
It might be more truthful as to what our implementation does
out-of-the-box, but it comes at a cost of making it more complicated than
it needs to be for what I think the common case will end up being.

I'd recommend that we have ship a pre-commit hook example (or include it in
the documentation?) to have a commented out check to verify that
svn:needs-lock property isn't present or that the commit has the lock.

I do think making the lock mandatory will end up being a very common use
case here: people will want to enforce that a needs-lock commit actually do
have the lock. So, forcing people to think they need the lock is a good
thing. =) -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 12 02:17:48 2005