On 04/05/2012 11:26 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > How would an admin arrange for svnsync to synchronize locks > (reserved-checkout locks, that is)? > > I was talking to Philip and he mentioned that he'd been thinking about > this. It seems to us that the only way available currently is for > post-[un]lock on the master to rsync the whole 'locks' directory to the > slave. (That's for FSFS; no idea if there's an equivalent for BDB.) > That doesn't seem satisfactory, for several reasons. One issue is it > isn't guaranteed to happen in the right order relative to commits. > > In terms of *preventing* a user committing to a locked file without > holding the lock, you don't need the locks to be present on the slave, of > course, because it's the master not the slave that will process a commit. > But if we don't sync locks onto the slave, then users checking out and > updating from the slave will not see the correct set of locks, which is > unhelpful. > > Could we teach svnsync to sync locks? > > If we did have a way to sync locks, there would then be locks on the > slave, and how would "svnsync sync" then make commits? I can't think how > it could know what lock tokens it should provide with the commit; the > master kept no record of them, nor even of the fact that such locks > existed on the master at that earlier point in time. I suppose svnsync > would have to make its commit to the slave in a way that bypasses all > lock checking. Or maybe there are ways we could make it supply the right > list of lock tokens, but I can't think of a way. Bypassing all locks > should be fine in this scenario.
See http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 for earlier manifestations of these thoughts and links to possibly to some more complications. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
