Mark Phippard wrote on Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:55:07 -0400:
> > To keep the information on this thread I quote a bit of information that was just added to this issue:
> >
> > ------- Additional comments from jmountifield_at_tigris.org Fri Jul 15 07:01:25 -0700 2011 -------
> >
> > Replicating the locks to the slave server, even with the right lock token value,
> > still leaves us with some issues in the master/slave configuration. The
> > following is based on local testing with svn, version 1.6.12 (r955767).
> >
> > Once a slave repository has locks present you cannot keep that slave up to date.
> > This is true with both `svnsync sync` and `svnadmin load`.
> >
> > With svnsync the reasons are somewhat obvious. The process looks like a normal
> > commit, and commits are blocked by locks. So, unless there's some way to change
> > the locking behaviour for svnsync specifically, I can't see a workaround here.
>
> This is good information ... thanks.
>
> As long as we call post-unlock before post-commit it remains possible
> for a replica to have the locks removed before svnsync tries to sync
> the commit ... right?
But that way you can't make the post-unlock script background itself
before it contacts the slaves...
Received on 2011-07-15 17:59:55 CEST