[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: RE: RE: Locking

From: Moore, Tom <Tom.Moore_at_aig.com>
Date: 2007-11-14 17:35:51 CET

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Baker [mailto:mbaker@itrsgroup.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:10 AM
>To: Moore, Tom; Erik Huelsmann
>Cc: Andy Levy; users@subversion.tigris.org
>Subject: RE: RE: Locking
>If it's only the server that knows about locks then, unless you change
>"svn status" to always query the server, it's better to show users
>nothing than to show them something that could be wrong.

Svn status reports the status of the files in the working copy unless
you give it the -u option. If the working copy knows that a file was
locked by user B when it last updated, and svn status returns the status
that the file in the working copy is listed as locked by User B, it is
returning "correct" data.

Files can be out of date with the repository, they can be deleted,
moved, renamed, etc by other users. The svn status command won't show
that unless the -u option is given. So if the repository changes and
the working copy isn't updated the svn status shown is "wrong". Based
on your argument svn status should by default query the server and maybe
only look locally with an option, because otherwise it would be showing
them something that "could" be wrong. I think that's overkill.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 14 17:59:24 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.