"Erik Huelsmann" <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote on 11/21/2007 04:08:01 PM:
> > We are all making assumptions in what the user is thinking at the
> > time they decide to modify a file. The current implementation is
> > assuming the user is aware that real-time lock information is not
> > available in the working copy data.
> >
> > This is possibly incorrect, since they may be assuming no information
> > means
> > the file isn't locked. (This is no different if the data is cached or
> > not.)
>
> Yes, this is different, because with caching you'll be tempted to
> assume there won't be a lock, though without the cache you are sure
> you don't know. The former is uncertainty, the latter is certainty. In
> version control (and software in a broader sense) certainty is good,
> uncertainty is bad.
Anyone that has read this whole thread may be certain "you don't know
the lock status", but if I polled my users, I doubt I would see even
a 50% correct answer...
With caching, you definitely know the status at the time the cache
was updated. Without caching you just don't know. In my opinion
that is an even bigger uncertainty.
Kevin R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 21 23:21:38 2007