Re: atomic locking

Have you a use-case for atomic unlocking in mind? Nothing comes to mind
for me. When unlocking something, you're sorta saying, "I'm no longer
interested in maintaining the exclusive right to change this." Does
that desire change simply because one of your unlock requests doesn't
pan out?

Miller, Eric wrote:
> 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
>
>

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand