Mark Phippard wrote on Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:55:07 -0400: > > To keep the information on this thread I quote a bit of information that > > was just added to this issue: > > > > ------- Additional comments from jmountifi...@tigris.org Fri Jul 15 > > 07:01:25 -0700 2011 ------- > > > > Replicating the locks to the slave server, even with the right lock token > > value, > > still leaves us with some issues in the master/slave configuration. The > > following is based on local testing with svn, version 1.6.12 (r955767). > > > > Once a slave repository has locks present you cannot keep that slave up to > > date. > > This is true with both `svnsync sync` and `svnadmin load`. > > > > With svnsync the reasons are somewhat obvious. The process looks like a > > normal > > commit, and commits are blocked by locks. So, unless there's some way to > > change > > the locking behaviour for svnsync specifically, I can't see a workaround > > here. > > This is good information ... thanks. > > As long as we call post-unlock before post-commit it remains possible > for a replica to have the locks removed before svnsync tries to sync > the commit ... right?
But that way you can't make the post-unlock script background itself before it contacts the slaves...
