"Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fitz@collab.net> writes:
> On May 26, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
>
>> Also I'm not really clear what constitutes a "non-fatal locking
>> error":
>>
>> $ svn lock wc/a wc/x
>> svn: warning: Path '/a' is already locked by user 'pm' in
>> filesystem '/home/pm/sw/subversion/obj/repo/db'
>> ../svn/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/err.c:286: (apr_err=160017)
>> svn: '/x' is not a file in filesystem '/home/pm/sw/subversion/obj/
>> repo/db'
>>
>> One of those comes out as a warning and the other as an error, but I
>> see no reason why they should be different. I can't ensure that wc/x
>> is a file before making the call any more than I can ensure that wc/a
>> is unlocked.
>
> Sure, but you're attempting to lock a file here, not to 'svn add' a
> file and then lock it. Finding an existing lock ("This file is
> already locked") is quite different than attempting to lock a non-
> existent or non-versioned file ("Lock wc/x? I see no wc/x here.").
I don't really understand why they are "quite different".
Both wc/a and wc/x are files in my working copy, neither is locked.
If I do a check (status or ls) before issuing the lock command I see
two unlocked files. There's a window between my check and lock
command during which somebody locks one file and replaces the other
with a directory, so both lock attempts fail.
It's not clear to me why we have chosen to make one of those
"non-fatal". The best I can come up with is that "already locked"
occurs more often. Is that really it? If an error occurs frequently
we make it non-fatal?
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 27 18:00:07 2005