Bruce Wilson <b-svn@toomuchblue.com> wrote on 11/28/2007 11:24:03 AM:
> Bicking, David (HHoldings, IT) wrote:
> > Um, well... This is an outcropping of the "Communication of LOCKS and
> > CHANGES" thread (search it if you missed it), which may have been
> > verging on fisticuffs. So, I'd say there are plenty of objections,
> > unless Erik and Les changed their minds.
>
> I believe this thread was started to segregate the contentious LOCKS
> issue from the generally more popular CHANGES issue. I think the locks
> issue needs to be discussed separately, even though the two ideas could
> end up being implemented together.
>
> I think what Edward said is true - there's apparently much good and
> little harm from caching the "this file has been modified at the server"
> flag.
Ah yes, very good point. File revisions are not considered "transient" by
the objectors of the LOCKING portion of this discussion because the
repo keeps a history of file changes.
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 28 18:29:49 2007