On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:14 -0400, "Mark Phippard" <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> > wrote: > > I agree it would be nice if this worked, but given that we have to remain > > sane to people who open an RA session to the slave before it has > > synced up I'm afraid it might be tricky to address. (That corresponds to > > the case of concurrent commits --- two people attempting Mark's two > > mkdirs concurrently.) ... > [...] As you know most of our SVN commands involved many HTTP > requests and the problem here is that some of them are handled by the > proxy and others are proxied to the master. A solution would likely > require the proxy to have more awareness of the SVN command being > executed so that it knew to proxy all of the requests back to the > master rather than handle any of them off the local replica.
What I'm worried about is someone who works with the RA API directly and expecting the API responses to be consistent with a given view of a repository --- regardless of whether they're working against a DAV mirror or not.
