Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:51 skrev Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Daniel Sahlberg > <daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > > Since the file doesn't have svn:needs-lock it should be RW [and the > Reverted message comes from Subversion trying to restore the W flag ...] > > Should it? Intuitively I'd say: since the file doesn't have > svn:needs-lock Subversion shouldn't be looking at R or RW. Why should > we make a file RW? Can't the user make a file readonly just locally, > and expect Subversion not to care? > > Or is "making a file readonly" a committable local change? Will it > show up on 'svn st' and can it be committed as some change that can be > transferred to another working copy? > > I understand that svn:needs-lock adds extra handling of the readonly > status of files, but without that property? > All good questions, and I probably agree with you: if svn:needs-lock isn't set then Subversion could just ignore the R/RW status. But any change here would change previous behaviour so it would need a solid consensus. If the check is removed for files that doesn't svn:needs-lock, then we might have to add code to restore RW status if svn:needs-lock is removed. Making a file readonly is currently not a committable change, didn't check 'svn st' but it will be reverted by 'svn revert' and it will not be transferred to another WC. It can only be committed indirectly via svn:needs-lock. Any discussion regarding svn:needs-lock probably also have to consider svn:executable, since it is handled similarly (except on WIN32 and OS2, where the concept of executable doesn't exists). I havn't completely made up my mind, but I think I favour keeping the current behaviour: R/RW status in indicated by the svn:needs-lock property and you shouldn't change R/RW manually within a WC. /Daniel
