Re: Performance of "svn lock *"
On 12/17/2013 09:35 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> I can't see us using POST instead of LOCK. AFAIU that's in conflict with
> the DAV spec; we already know that we could have writen a much more
> efficient custom HTTP protocol, and decided against it for good reasons.
> Pipelining LOCK requests sounds like the way to go; people can upgrade
> their servers if they really want this.
Just piping in on this one point. POST is perfectly acceptable here,
and is not in conflict with the DAV spec in the least. Just because we
add a new route for locking/unlocked multiple paths (via POST) doesn't
mean we'll stop supporting the DAV LOCK/UNLOCK one-path-at-a-time route.
That's all the compatibility -- with old Subversion clients and generic
WebDAV clients alike -- that we need to fuss with.
Received on 2013-12-17 16:07:29 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev