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

RE: Communication of LOCKS and CHANGES

From: Brian Erickson <erickson_at_BAUERCONTROLS.com>
Date: 2007-11-20 20:16:32 CET

I've been reading this thread with much interest but as a new user and
someone who is not involved with the development of Subversion I've been
hesitant about chiming in...but here goes...

I think caching the lock info would create a serious consistency issue.
The cache would have to be used for other status info besides locks..
See the following output from svn status...

1) pcs42xx D:\junk>svn status
M trunk\test.txt

2) pcs42xx D:\junk>svn status -u
M * 63 trunk\test.txt
Status against revision: 64

3) pcs42xx D:\junk>svn status
M trunk\test.txt

pcs42xx D:\junk>

Since svn status doesn't cache anything the 3rd use reports I have a
local modification but is quiet about being out-of-date. What you
asking for with locks would mean, to me anyway, that the cached lock
status is inconsistent with the rest of SVN. To be consistent the 3rd
use of svn status (above) should report that a new version is available.

I don't think the caching of the status is such a bad thing but it would
be a large change (I'm guessing) to the code. However, and more
importantly, it's a large change to the meaning of the status command.
At this point of the game I'm not sure such a fundamental change is

Feel free to ignore...

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 20 20:21:01 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.