On 03.04.2014, at 19:28, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 07:12:26PM +0200, Tobias Bading wrote: >> I'm quite sure Emacs doesn't fork more than one svn child process in >> parallel, > > It doesn't matter how many clients emacs is forking. > > As soon as emacs runs an svn client that tries to access the working copy > at the same as any other svn client (run by emacs or something else), one > of the clients will run into an error if exclusive locking mode is enabled.
Ok, maybe I should have been a little clearer on what I'm doing. Somewhere in my home directory on the AIX machine there is a private working copy created by svn 1.8 locally on the AIX machine. I'm using Emacs on a Linux machine to edit files, resolve conflicts etc. The working copy needs to be on the AIX machine because I need to test the code there. I'm quite sure that nobody except me is accessing that working copy. Forget that I mentioned Emacs for a second ;-). I simply run "svn resolved <file>" in a shell on the Linux machine while the current directory is the SMB-auto-mounted working directory. Theoretically, I guess it would be possible that a smbd process on the AIX machine is still holding a lock from some aborted operation days ago or so. But I'm quite sure that Emacs forking "svn resolved" never worked for me with a remote 1.8 working copy. I'll check that with a fresh working copy tomorrow. > Not sure if this is really relevant but using a windows network share > with sqlite is discouraged by the sqlite faq: http://sqlite.org/faq.html#q5 > > """ > People who have a lot of experience with Windows tell me that file > locking of network files is very buggy and is not dependable. If what > they say is true, sharing an SQLite database between two or more Windows > machines might cause unexpected problems. > """ > > It's possible that this extends to Samba but the wording doesn't make > this entirely clear. Yep, using NFS might by an alternative.
