[BUG] Pull command on Windows: we have 2 problems

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 16:32 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> I see those as workarounds.  I'd add
> 3) change Branch so that read-locked operations will work when Branch is
> write-locked.

This is already the case:
    def lock_read(self):
        mutter("lock read: %s (%s)", self, self._lock_count)
        if self._lock_mode:
            assert self._lock_mode in ('r', 'w'), \
                   "invalid lock mode %r" % self._lock_mode
            self._lock_count += 1
...


> > I think the basic difference is that on Linux, if you already have a
> > write lock on a file, it silently ignores the request for a read lock.
> 
> We can emulate that by factoring out the lock into a LocationLock
> object, and keeping a global dict of LocationLocks.  I think factoring
> out LocationLock would be a positive step, no matter what.

Thats probably a good thing to do in its own right. 


Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051026/8c85bbec/attachment.pgp