Re: [PATCH]: issue #2264 - multiple locks over ra_svn - v2

[VK Sameer <sa...@collab.net>]

Peter N. Lundblad wrote on 05/24/2005 02:15 AM:
> I think you could clean this up a little before a detailed review. There
is some debugging printfs left in the code:-)

Whoops, sorry about that :( - need to do a more careful review of the  patch
next time before sending it out. An updated patch is attached.

> MOre importantly, I think it would be good if you started by a patch to
libsvn_ra_svn/protocol. Then we can get the protocol extension right first.

Hmm, Ben (Collins-Sussman) said he wanted to grab 2263 (the same
extension over ra_dav) and it's currently assigned to him. I'm not sure  of
the status though.

While I have your attention, Peter ;) and others. Is the intent of this
extension to pass a set of paths (and revision numbers or other associated
data) end-to-end?

Thanks
Sameer

Re: [PATCH]: issue #2264 - multiple locks over ra_svn - v2

["Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@collab.net>]

On May 23, 2005, at 11:16 PM, VK Sameer wrote:

> Peter N. Lundblad wrote on 05/24/2005 02:15 AM:
>
>> I think you could clean this up a little before a detailed review.  
>> There
>>
> is some debugging printfs left in the code:-)
>
> Whoops, sorry about that :( - need to do a more careful review of  
> the  patch
> next time before sending it out. An updated patch is attached.
>
>
>> MOre importantly, I think it would be good if you started by a  
>> patch to
>>
> libsvn_ra_svn/protocol. Then we can get the protocol extension  
> right first.
>
> Hmm, Ben (Collins-Sussman) said he wanted to grab 2263 (the same
> extension over ra_dav) and it's currently assigned to him. I'm not  
> sure  of
> the status though.

the ra_svn protocol has nothing to do with th ra_dav changes, so feel  
free to provide a patch for the protocol document.

> While I have your attention, Peter ;) and others. Is the intent of  
> this
> extension to pass a set of paths (and revision numbers or other  
> associated
> data) end-to-end?

I'm not Peter, but I can answer this. :)

The intent of this change is to send the comment, owner and force  
flag once, and a revnum and a path for each path to be locked or  
unlocked, and to do it all in one server roundtrip.  The existing  
code just makes a bunch of roundtrips to the server, sending one lock  
at a time.

-Fitz

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org