Thanks. I've added the issue # and summary to the subject line now.
- Julian
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> How would an admin arrange for svnsync to synchronize locks
>> (reserved-checkout locks, that is)?
>>
>> I was talking to Philip and he mentioned that he'd been thinking about
>> this. It seems to us that the only way available currently is for
>> post-[un]lock on the master to rsync the whole 'locks' directory to the
>> slave. (That's for FSFS; no idea if there's an equivalent for BDB.)
>> That doesn't seem satisfactory, for several reasons. One issue is it
>> isn't guaranteed to happen in the right order relative to commits.
>>
>> In terms of *preventing* a user committing to a locked file without
>> holding the lock, you don't need the locks to be present on the slave, of
>> course, because it's the master not the slave that will process a commit.
>> But if we don't sync locks onto the slave, then users checking out and
>> updating from the slave will not see the correct set of locks, which is
>> unhelpful.
>>
>> Could we teach svnsync to sync locks?
>>
>> If we did have a way to sync locks, there would then be locks on the
>> slave, and how would "svnsync sync" then make commits? I can't think how
>> it could know what lock tokens it should provide with the commit; the
>> master kept no record of them, nor even of the fact that such locks
>> existed on the master at that earlier point in time. I suppose svnsync
>> would have to make its commit to the slave in a way that bypasses all
>> lock checking. Or maybe there are ways we could make it supply the right
>> list of lock tokens, but I can't think of a way. Bypassing all locks
>> should be fine in this scenario.
>
> See http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 for earlier
> manifestations of these thoughts and links to possibly to some more
> complications.
Received on 2012-04-05 18:37:38 CEST