On Apr 12, 2005, at 6:39 PM, D.J. Heap wrote:
> I've been testing the locking functionality a bit in preparation for
> using it, and have found what seem to be a couple of issues. Although
> I haven't been able to follow the lists very well for quite a while, I
> have read the locking notes and believe I have a decent understanding
> of how it works (and hopefully should work).
>
> The first issue is when I lock an out-of-date file (especially with
> the needs-lock property on). The file is not currently locked by
> anyone else (and if needs-lock was on, it is changed to editable from
> read-only) so I get the lock, edit the file, and fail to commit
> because I'm out of date. This seems to defeat the purpose of the lock
> in the first place (to prevent wasting my time on unmergeable
> changes). Shouldn't there at least be some notification at lock time
> that the file is out of date?
Hmm. Interesting point! I would say that in order to lock a file in a
working copy, the working copy should *have* to be up to date. I can't
recall going over this case, but it seems like requiring an up-to-date
wc is The Right Thing To Do.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 13 04:35:34 2005