On 03.04.2014, at 19:28, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 07:12:26PM +0200, Tobias Bading wrote:
>> I'm quite sure Emacs doesn't fork more than one svn child process in
>> parallel,
>
> It doesn't matter how many clients emacs is forking.
>
> As soon as emacs runs an svn client that tries to access the working copy
> at the same as any other svn client (run by emacs or something else), one
> of the clients will run into an error if exclusive locking mode is enabled.
Ok, maybe I should have been a little clearer on what I'm doing.
Somewhere in my home directory on the AIX machine there is a private
working copy created by svn 1.8 locally on the AIX machine. I'm using
Emacs on a Linux machine to edit files, resolve conflicts etc.
The working copy needs to be on the AIX machine because I need to test
the code there. I'm quite sure that nobody except me is accessing that
working copy. Forget that I mentioned Emacs for a second ;-). I simply
run "svn resolved <file>" in a shell on the Linux machine while the
current directory is the SMB-auto-mounted working directory.
Theoretically, I guess it would be possible that a smbd process on the
AIX machine is still holding a lock from some aborted operation days
ago or so. But I'm quite sure that Emacs forking "svn resolved" never
worked for me with a remote 1.8 working copy. I'll check that with a
fresh working copy tomorrow.
> Not sure if this is really relevant but using a windows network share
> with sqlite is discouraged by the sqlite faq: http://sqlite.org/faq.html#q5
>
> """
> People who have a lot of experience with Windows tell me that file
> locking of network files is very buggy and is not dependable. If what
> they say is true, sharing an SQLite database between two or more Windows
> machines might cause unexpected problems.
> """
>
> It's possible that this extends to Samba but the wording doesn't make
> this entirely clear.
Yep, using NFS might by an alternative.
Received on 2014-04-03 19:54:14 CEST