Thanks. I've added the issue # and summary to the subject line now. - Julian
C. Michael Pilato wrote: > 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.
