On May 27, 2005, at 11:40 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fitz@red-bean.com> writes:
>
>
>> I think it's all about intent. Given 'wc/a' and 'wc/b', if you
>> already have a lock on wc/a and then run 'svn lock wc/a wc/b', you've
>> already got a lock on wc/a, so why error? We just inform you that
>> you already had a lock, then move on to wc/b.
>>
>
> I don't have already have the lock, the lock belongs to somebody else.
> Before locking I checked the repository and 'wc/a' was an unlocked
> file, but I was beaten to the lock.
Ah! Now I understand... I thought that your wc already had wc/a
locked. Sorry for being dense.
> I also checked 'wc/b' and it too
> was an unlocked file, in that case somebody beat me and deleted it.
>
>
>> It's the same thing
>> with attempting to 'svn add' a file that's already been added:
>>
>> $ touch 1 2 3
>> $ svn add 2
>> A 2
>> $ svn add ?
>> A 1
>> svn: warning: '2' is already under version control
>> A 3
>>
>> In your case, however, wc/x has been replaced with a directory and I
>> consider that to be a different case--you can't just lock the
>> directory, and you don't already have a lock on it.
>>
>> Does that make sense? Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
>>
>
> No, it doesn't really make sense. It seems to be arbitrary whether a
> particular failure is treated as non-fatal. I suppose we do have
> other arbitrary behaviour, whether unversioned files are skipped or
> not, but it still strikes me as strange.
Well, I think you're right--this is a bug. I think that it's OK to
warn on 'svn lock' if we already have the lock in our working copy,
but if someone else has the lock, I think an error is in order.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 27 19:32:53 2005