[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: RE: Atomicity of locks and needs-lock

From: Edward Harvey <eharvey_at_chilsemi.com>
Date: 2006-04-29 19:08:36 CEST

> There is only one reason, at present, that the client is
> unable to gray the icon and make read-only, on a locked file.
> The client has no way to know that the file is remotely
> locked, because there is no information about remote locks in
> the entries file.

So the end result is -- At present, the client cannot protect a user
from accidentally editing a file that has been locked by another user.
The user must actively protect themselves.

And the reason is -- There is no information about remote locks stored
in the entries file. Even though that information is available from a
simple status query. The only place the information is presently
allowed to be stored... Is in the human's brain. I say it would be
better on disk.

I'm guessing that's a reasonable behavior to change -- not too
difficult, backward compatible, useful, ignorable, and optional. And in
alignment with current practices. We already store information about
*local* locks there, and we already store *other* remote properties
there such as needs-lock.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 29 19:09:13 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.