Hi, On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:43:52AM -0700, Justin Case wrote: > > From: Ulrich Eckhardt <ulrich.eckha...@dominolaser.com> > > > > Only you (the user) knows "if it was interrupted" or is maybe still > > running! I would say that this message could be improved[0], but > > I beg to differ: the operation which interrupted itself because it found a > file in use knows very well that it was interrupted. So, it would be in the > best position to do something instead of just quitting graciously. You later > suggestion "leave the working copy in a state of mixed revisions" is exactly > what I as user would expect from it: "hey, error! I couldn't finish my job > bcoz file X is in use, just close the other app then try updating again".
Dito. That context knows that it encountered a problem and knows best what it's been doing, thus it's obviously within its own scope and *responsibility* that it should be doing (or at least attempting to do) proper cleanup. Necessity of "svn cleanup" should definitely be relegated to exceptional use cases, since it's a problematic *foreign* intrusion into the lock-shared processing. Well, so much for idealistic speak - I don't know SVN implementation specifics which might go against implementing it like that. > And I could swear it was like this before, I never had to cleanup even though > I always forgot DLLs in use... I just can't test it because the only machine > with a 1.6 SVN I have is a server and doesn't have Word (and will never have) > - any idea how to mark a file "in use" on Windows Server 2003? > Notepad/Wordpad doesn't cut it. Probably see exclusive sharing modes (flags at Win32 CreateFile() API). Either code up a quick app which locks a file, or do an internet search on the terms encountered in CreateFile() docs and thus discover some app which already does that, too. HTH, Andreas Mohr
