On Wed, 2011-03-09, Greg Stein wrote: > I think it is okay, but it *is* a change from 1.6. In a working copy > with two copies of a given repos_relpath, one could be annotated as > "locked" and the other not. Then, running "svn status -u" would give > two different status values for these local nodes (one locked, one > "locked by somebody else"). In 1.7, both will be reported the same. > > That seems totally fine to me, but is a difference. And I think the > model (as you comment in this patch) is the correct model: we cache > what we know and report on that. I don't think we need to strongly > associate repos-lock information with paths like 1.6 would do.
Thanks. Glad I asked. r1080172. - Julian > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:50, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > Bert & Greg - OK? > > > > Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-metadata.sql > > =================================================================== > > --- subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-metadata.sql (revision 1079778) > > +++ subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-metadata.sql (working copy) > > @@ -184,15 +184,11 @@ > > > > /* > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ > > > > +/* This table is a cache of information about repository locks. */ > > CREATE TABLE LOCK ( > > /* what repository location is locked */ > > repos_id INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES REPOSITORY (id), > > repos_relpath TEXT NOT NULL, > > - /* ### BH: Shouldn't this refer to an working copy location? You can > > have a > > - single relpath checked out multiple times in one (switch) or more > > - working copies. */ > > - /* ### HKW: No, afaik. This table is just a cache of what's in the > > - repository, so these should be repos_relpaths. */ > > > > /* Information about the lock. Note: these values are just caches from > > the server, and are not authoritative. */
