On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:58:44 +0000, Anton Shepelev wrote:
...
> Is there no protection against an oblivious users's
> losing a day's work merely because he forgot to up-
> date his working copy, which was obsolete beyond
> merging?
He will learn it, lucky eddie style.
If you plan doing massive work in a module, you
need to talk to the other people working in the
same module anyway, as they would be annoyed if
you locked the file, and they can't do planned work.
Ideally the other people do their commits in small
increments as well, and you could go and try to
merge their work to see if that works or starts
to fall apart. (Even more ideally you'd get
notifications if other people commit changes
that happen in parallel to yours, and will need
to be merged.)
...
> I should like svn to update the local copy automati-
> cally once the lock is issued, but it seems impossi-
> ble via server-side hooks, for they don't have ac-
> cess the user's woking copy where the file must be
> updated.
If you want such things you should visit clearcase,
with their basically-mandatory central file server.
...
> time it is locked? As I understand, it requires
> customization of the svn client so that whenever
> asked to unlock a file it shall update it also. Is
> it possible?
No. SVN clients may not even be online at that time.
Also I would seriously *not* want files to change
in my workspace e.g under a test run.
...
> Maybe, but I am under peer pressure, and TFS is the
> alternative, and I think we still need it at least
> for "binary" files such as MS Word documents.
Actually, we use svn for such purposes (non-mergable files),
and git for regular sources. Unfortunately I'm not the
svn side admin, so I can't tell how they do the locking.
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Received on 2016-09-29 20:02:54 CEST