On 14.11.2013 21:54, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 14.11.2013 21:44, Philip Martin wrote: >> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes: >> >>> On 14.11.2013 19:24, Rick Varney wrote: >>>> We are currently on Subversion 1.6.6. >>>> What do you think? Any alternatives I have not considered? Should I >>>> open a feature request for this? >>> I disagree with the behaviour change because it makes 'svn delete' in >>> the presence of svn:needs-lock behave exactly opposite to every other >>> command. IMO, it's quite enough to simply fix the bug where we try to >>> change the permissions on a non-existent local path. >>> >>> So I suggest you file a bug for that, not for the behaviour change. >> We won't fix this in 1.6 and 1.8 is already fixed: >> >> $ svn rm wc/A/f >> D wc/A/f >> $ svn st wc/A/f >> D wc/A/f >> $ svn lock wc/A/f >> 'f' locked by user 'pm'. >> $ svn st wc/A/f >> D K wc/A/f > > Yes, I was just going to say. I added test cases for this on trunk, > and they passed; I've just been running them on 1.8, where they pass > as well. > > In other words, upgrading to 1.8 will fix the issue, and in the > meantime, ask your users to either revert the delete first (i.e., 'svn > revert file; svn lock file; svn rm file; svn commit', or to use the > URL in the 'svn lock' command.
And here's the related issue: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4304 -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
