On Feb 15, 2008, at 3:20 PM, David Glasser wrote:
> 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!
If you were to have only one lock, wouldn't that eliminate the
possibility of multiple users interacting with the working copy?
>
>
> --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_at_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
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-15 22:59:45 CET