On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:27:56PM +0200, Stephan Beal wrote: > 2011/10/19 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]> > > > the file, and that also has only an informative role. Maybe something like > > propagated tags could mark files as needs_lock, and act accordingly on > > updates/checkouts/... > > > > You found another use for propagating tags ;). > > As someone pointed out the original thread, fossil currently only allows > tagging of commits, not files. Looking at the tagxref table, it's not clear > to me whether that table supports (at least in principal) tagging individual > files. If it does, tagging sounds like a good and simple solution to the > "advisory locking" problem.
Well, the tags name or value could have the file name. Maybe, instead of tags, there could be a list like the versionable 'glob-ignore', of files that require locks. Those could be checked out with read-only permissions. That could even help even before fossil having a capability of centraliising locks; the read-only permissions could be enough for the people in a team to decide on the locks. Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
