On 15.01.2014 19:28, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 1/15/14, 10:22 AM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
>> To be clear, this isn't implying that `svn lock` of a directory will work over DAV, correct? Just that the repository supports storing the fact that some other DAV client has LOCKed a directory, and the DAV protocol layer supports communicating that information back to the `svn` client?
> Not even that much is done. I meant that the DAV RFC includes details on how
> locks on collections (DAV's name for directories) should work. DAV handles the
> inheritance by supporting a depth parameter for the lock.
>
> Basic model for how looking should work that specifies some behavior related to
> depth-infinity locks:
> http://webdav.org/specs/rfc4918.html#lock-model
>
> Specific section on directory locks.
> http://webdav.org/specs/rfc4918.html#write.locks.and.collections
>
> One problem that may arise here is we may not like how DAV implemented
> directory locks. If not then we have the issue of our LOCK method support not
> really being compatible with DAV.
We certainly have to hack thinks to map non-recursive directory locks to
any reasonable locking model in Subversion. This is because of
Subversion's bubble-up storage model, in which the revisions of all
parent directories of a change are updated by a commit.
Inheritance is also an interesting topic, and the fact that Subversion
allows locks to be created on nonexistent paths (and that our locks
don't record the recursive vs. non-recursive bit) would also make for
interesting side effects.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane_at_wandisco.com
Received on 2014-01-15 19:34:48 CET