WC-NG gurus, Our WC-NG write-lock, as in svn_wc__acquire_write_lock() and svn_wc__call_with_write_lock(), is said to apply only to a directory and not to a file. However, in WC-NG it appears to me that doesn't make sense, because it applies to a *path* and WC-NG can have different node kinds in different op-depth layers at that same path.
I am wondering whether the write lock should apply simply to a path, without trying to care whether that path "is" a directory or a file. In practical terms, we don't yet need to make 1.7 be able to replace a dir with a file or vice versa, we only need compatibility with 1.6, but this seems like a design issue that we need to address. Issues: * Is my thinking logically sound? * Are there some important semantics of write-lock that really only apply to a directory? * If we change this, how would we map between WC-NG write-locks and old adm_access write locks? Would it be sufficient to say that a WC-NG lock on a file would produce an adm_access lock on its parent, while an adm_access lock (which is always on a dir) would simply translate to a WC-NG lock on the same dir? * Is there any need to act to change this before 1.7? Although I have run into this issue in trying to sort out the "copy" code, I can live with it by always taking out a lock on the parent dir, regardless of the combination of node kinds at the child path. My feeling is also that such a change would result in an overall code simplification, but I can't actually demonstrate that. - Julian
