Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=zSLpUGMUPFJ7/nQhe9kp8UKz1YnNbz2Ga8L6AaymHQr4eK99RphNK6ccnJFwPzGGFpaK7FYYX/FCpXSvyMqejo5ugBvsj7roLuZAFHLyIV6Cna+u38ChHaiTESyL0Lwk07lCKcfyQlz0+r/czMDUYuf/NEObaJJaqmTNljOPeUM=;
References: <1333639575.6592.YahooMailNeo@web87702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
 <4F7DC605.3030604@collab.net>
Message-ID: <1333643823.71137.YahooMailNeo@web87702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:37:03 +0100 (BST)
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com>
Reply-To: Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: svnsync and locks -- issue #3457 "Unable to replicate locks in
 webdav proxy setup"
To: "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net>
Cc: SubversionDevelopment <dev@subversion.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F7DC605.3030604@collab.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks.=A0 I've added the issue # and summary to the subject line now.=0A=
=0A- Julian=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AC. Michael Pilato wrote:=0A> Julian Foad wrote:=
=0A>>  How would an admin arrange for svnsync to synchronize locks=0A>>  (r=
eserved-checkout locks, that is)?=0A>> =0A>>  I was talking to Philip and h=
e mentioned that he'd been thinking about=0A>>  this.=A0 It seems to us tha=
t the only way available currently is for=0A>>  post-[un]lock on the master=
 to rsync the whole 'locks' directory to the=0A>>  slave.=A0 (That's for FS=
FS; no idea if there's an equivalent for BDB.)=0A>>  That doesn't seem sati=
sfactory, for several reasons.=A0 One issue is it=0A>>  isn't guaranteed to=
 happen in the right order relative to commits.=0A>> =0A>>  In terms of *pr=
eventing* a user committing to a locked file without=0A>>  holding the lock=
, you don't need the locks to be present on the slave, of=0A>>  course, bec=
ause it's the master not the slave that will process a commit.=0A>>  But if=
 we don't sync locks onto the slave, then users checking out and=0A>>  upda=
ting from the slave will not see the correct set of locks, which is=0A>>  u=
nhelpful.=0A>> =0A>>  Could we teach svnsync to sync locks?=0A>> =0A>>  If =
we did have a way to sync locks, there would then be locks on the=0A>>  sla=
ve, and how would "svnsync sync" then make commits?=A0 I can't think how=0A=
>>  it could know what lock tokens it should provide with the commit; the=
=0A>>  master kept no record of them, nor even of the fact that such locks=
=0A>>  existed on the master at that earlier point in time.=A0 I suppose sv=
nsync=0A>>  would have to make its commit to the slave in a way that bypass=
es all=0A>>  lock checking.=A0 Or maybe there are ways we could make it sup=
ply the right=0A>>  list of lock tokens, but I can't think of a way.=A0 Byp=
assing all locks=0A>>  should be fine in this scenario.=0A> =0A> See http:/=
/subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3D3457 for earlier=0A> manife=
stations of these thoughts and links to possibly to some more=0A> complicat=
ions.