On Nov 16, 2007 5:13 PM, Harvey, Edward <Edward.Harvey@patni.com> wrote:
> The issue here is really just one simple thing:
> Communicating the presence of someone else's lock.
>
> Since svn is a pull (not sync or push) protocol, there's only way to be
> sure a file isn't locked before you edit it: Check for lock, and/or get
> lock.
> However, it would be useful if someone else's lock were communicated to
> you automatically, to help you avoid lost work. (Very few people will
> religiously check for lock if they know 98% of the time there is no
> lock.)
>
> Unfortunately, in order for this to happen, svn itself must cache the
> last known lock status, and there's always the risk that the last known
> lock status is now outdated.
> I had this discussion some months ago in
> the svn dev group, and folks generally agreed it was ok to cache that
> info,
I was there when we first made the decision not to cache it. It was
taken quite conciously. Also, I have little recollection of any thread
with the outcome as you put it, so I searched http://svn.haxx.se/ but
all I seem to be able to find is people saying "we don't agree with
your process, so why would we agree it needs automation?"...
Could you provide a pointer to the thread you're referencing here? For
additional background reading?
> and the tortoisesvn folks generally agreed that if it were cached,
> it would be ok to display it. But nobody seems interested in coding the
> changes.
I think we have bigger problems than this, at least for now. Next to
that: in Open Source everybody scratches his/her own itch. If you want
to change the libraries to do this, the sources are yours to do it.
(However if you want to achieve mainline integration, you're invited
to discuss your proposed (code)changes on the development list...)
HTH,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 16 19:36:43 2007