Re: Bug in multipath unlock - fails on unrelated working copy locks

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Miller, Eric <Eric.Miller_at_amd.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dglasser_at_gmail.com [mailto:dglasser_at_gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> David
> > Glasser
>
> > I dunno. "L" really only happens if you have concurrent access to the
> > working copy or a crash to recover from. In your real cases, which
> > one is it?
>
> Not important, lets assume both cases happen.

Eric, I am still curious about your use case.

Specifically, I've been brainstorming designs for a new working copy
library. One thing I've been trying to figure out would be whether or
not it would be OK to lock the entire working copy for operations (as
opposed to just a subdirectory). This is impractical with the current
implementation (since every subdirectory has its own lock file) but
could be done efficiently with a monolithic-working-copy design. Thus
I'm curious about your use case!

--dave

> I guess it is a question of consistency.
>
> The following works:
>
> svn unlock wc/dir/B/file1
> svn unlock wc/dir/C/file2
>
> while this fails:
>
>
> svn unlock wc/dir/B/file1 wc/dir/C/file2
>
> Eric
>
>
>

-- 
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org