[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Newbie CVS commitinfo question

From: Larry Jones
Subject: Re: Newbie CVS commitinfo question
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:59:48 -0400 (EDT)

Greg A. address@hidden (Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.) writes:
> [ On Friday, July 12, 2002 at 16:54:15 (-0700), Bryan Bunch wrote: ]
> >
> >      So my initial thought is "why shouldn't the same user that has a 
> > global 
> > lock on the whole repository also be able to execute read-only operations 
> > like update or checkout that don't modify the repository's state?" My guess 
> > is that it's simply easier to do lock management if locks aren't 
> > "same-user-re-entrant" and no other cvs operations are allowed once the 
> > commit starts.
> What does user identity have to do with repository integrity?  The
> repoisitory is not likely in a consistent state when it's locked.  It
> doesn't matter who locked it or who's trying to access it.

Exactly.  The "right" solution to the problem is to enhance CVS's
locking to allow read locks to be "upgraded" to write locks and write
locks "downgraded" to read locks.  That way, long-running processes can
take out read locks to ensure the tree stays consistent without locking
out other users except when actively updating RCS files.

-Larry Jones

I think grown-ups just ACT like they know what they're doing. -- Calvin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]