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

RE: Atomicity of locks and needs-lock

From: Edward Harvey <eharvey_at_chilsemi.com>
Date: 2006-05-01 02:15:52 CEST

> Ahh, but the question then becomes - how is it helpful when a
> file shows as unlocked in my local cache and does not say
> that it needs a lock?

I might be misunderstanding your question, but I think you're talking
about locks that are not locally known, because there hasn't been a
recent enough update, right?

At first pass, in order to have any benefit you have to perform an
update. But it's still an improvement, because right now the
information isn't shown, *even if* you perform an update.

In the future, I would like to see a few improvements to this, but take
one step at a time and not right now. For example, since the local
cache of remote lock info describes the repository files and not
necessarily the local files, it is actually safe to update the local
cache on *either* an update or a status check.

So it then becomes safe to perform a periodic status check silently,
which would ensure that you always have lock info as recent as n
minutes. With no risk to anything else you might be doing.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 1 02:16:42 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.