On 07/14/2011 10:00 AM, kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote on 07/14/2011 08:40:29 AM:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 08:17:07AM -0500, kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com wrote:
>> > Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote on 07/14/2011 06:58:24 AM:
>> > > The attached patch makes some improvements to how we report that the WC
>> > > is locked or busy (the 'run cleanup' messages). I need a sanity check
>> > > to make sure I've understood the relationship between how we want to
>> > > handle 'the work queue is busy' and 'there is a write lock on a WC
>> > > directory'.
>> >
>> > I'm all for removing the overloaded "lock" terminology. We see a lot
>> > of confused users who think they somehow incorrectly locked a file
>> > in the repository when they see the old messages...
>>
>> I agree. It should say something like "the working copy is busy" instead.
>> ("busy" because it not used elsewhere, and because it will be
>> understood even by non-technical users who don't know what a lock is
>> supposed to be in this context).
>
> Not that I can vote, but using "busy" instead of "lock" gets my +1...
+1, this is a good idea. Maybe I could rewrite the "The Three Meanings of
“Lock”" section of the book to be "The Two Meanings...". :-)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2011-07-14 17:50:58 CEST