[MERGE] really get push working with less lock churn

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 17:05 +1000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > === modified file 'bzrlib/branch.py'
> [...]
> > +            # XXX: Lock correctness - should unlock our old repo if we were
> > +            # locked.
> 
> Is this XXX likely to be a problem in the near future?

No, its an existing bug I saw when reading the code.

> >      def lock_read(self):
> > -        self.repository.lock_read()
> > +        repo_control = getattr(self.repository, 'control_files', None)
> > +        if self.control_files == repo_control or not self.is_locked():
> 
> I don't really understand what the first half of that if condition is for (and
> I'm in a slight hurry to catch a train...).

all-in-one repositories share a control files between them, for them the
branch is never unlocked until the repo is also, so the 'if unlocked'
clause would never fire. So I preserved their behaviour.

> > === modified file 'bzrlib/tests/lock_helpers.py'
> > --- bzrlib/tests/lock_helpers.py	2009-03-23 14:59:43 +0000
> > +++ bzrlib/tests/lock_helpers.py	2009-04-15 05:39:38 +0000
> > @@ -44,6 +44,12 @@
> >          self.__dict__['_allow_read'] = True
> >          self.__dict__['_allow_unlock'] = True
> >  
> > +    def __eq__(self, other):
> > +        # Branch objects look for controlfiles == repo.controlfiles.
> > +        if type(other) == LockWrapper:
> 
> Use “is” to compare types.

Sure.

Thanks,
Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090415/4e9bb4d2/attachment-0001.pgp