On Apr 2, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2005, at 3:59 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Josh Pieper wrote:
>>
>>> I think one of the advantages of this declared edit feature is that
>>> it
>>> allows status/diff gathering to be blazingly fast. 'svn status' can
>>> take absurdly long periods of time on large working copies. If there
>>> were an option to have read-only checkouts and have a 'svn edit'
>>> command make them read+write, Subversion could keep track of which
>>> files had been edited and significantly speed up status, diff,
>>> commit,
>>> etc. It would make svn usable on projects where working on only
>>> portions of a large tree is not practical.
>>
>> Replace "svn edit" with "svn lock" and don't you have the same basic
>> feature (minus the potential speedup for the status command) ???
>
> No, because 'svn lock' prevents others from committing. The original
> poster said he doesn't want to disable concurrency, he just wants
> people to have to declare their intent to edit.
Ah. Any plans for "shared" or "non-exclusive" locks then? Basically
informing the user that someone else is editing the file at the same
time.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 3 02:32:09 2005