Thanks!
For consistency do you think this should apply to unlock as well?
Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpilato@collab.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 9:35 AM
> To: Ben Collins-Sussman
> Cc: Miller, Eric; dev@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: atomic locking
>
> Just for the record, I've filed this as an enhancement request, issue
> #2699 (http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2699)
>
>
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > On 1/18/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote
> >
> >> I don't recall whether it was intentionally implemented this way or
> not,
> >> to be honest. I can certainly see the utility of an all-or-nothing
set
> >> of locks, and imagine it wouldn't be too terribly hard to implement
as
> >> much.
> >
> > Yeah, this use-case just didn't cross our minds when we designed the
> > feature. It's certainly a feature that could be added in the
future,
> > if there were enough demand.
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
> >
>
>
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On
Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 19 18:11:11 2007