Unfortunately, the system isn't flawless. She doesn't think to run svn status -u, so she has no idea that Harry has already locked the file. Where is your file located? We have three other laptops that are functioning fine. I attach the build log and Jenkins log, hope it useful for you, Thanks. Subversion's solution to this problem is to provide a mechanism to remind users that a file ought to be locked before the editing begins.
Run to view stored credentials on your client computer. I tried several answers provided above, but none worked for me. I had given below properties in catalina. There's not much that Subversion can do in this situation—at the end of the day, there's simply no substitution for good interpersonal communication. I didn't need to go through proxy.
By the way, I wonder why Jenkins use the authentication on Master? If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. The simpler thing to do is to steal the lock, which involves breaking and relocking the file all in one atomic step. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Also, the svn status command shows a K next to the file short for locKed , indicating that the lock token is present. Regarding Lock Tokens A lock token isn't an authentication token, so much as an authorization token. The mechanism is a special property: svn:needs-lock. You can generally forget about these other kinds of locks until something goes wrong that requires you to care about them.
Subversion also allows you to supplement its content merge processing with external differencing utilities as described in and , some of which may do an even better job, perhaps providing granularity of a word or a single character of text. But, as expected, Subversion fails the commit, informing Sally that her version of the image is now out of date. Of course, things would have gone more smoothly if Harry and Sally had serialized their modifications to the image—if, say, Harry had waited to draw his windshield cracks on Sally's now-red car, or if Sally had tweaked the color of a car whose windshield was already cracked. That's how it works for me. Read the article for more information. If Harry and Sally were making changes to a text file, Sally would simply update her working copy, receiving Harry's changes in the process.
Clearly the repo name is not realy, fooBar. And when you can't find a tool that can handle that type of merging, you begin to run into problems with the copy-modify-merge model. Regardless, her changes aren't mergeable with Harry's. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. So, despite the fact that Subversion and Apache were running on windows it was suggested that I try changing the case and try again. You can also make this your default behavior by setting the no-unlock runtime configuration option see. Shouldn't it use the authentication on slave only? And conversely, the presence of this property doesn't make the repository require a lock when committing.
Breaking and Stealing Locks A repository lock isn't sacred—in Subversion's default configuration state, locks can be released not only by the person who created them, but by anyone. Harry's working copy still contains the original lock token, but that lock no longer exists. For mac and subversion it is not a problem and file got in. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. One of these two people has to throw away his or her work, and a lot of time has been wasted. Here's where the difficulty sets in.
Harry and Sally are both graphic designers working on the same project, a bit of marketing collateral for an automobile mechanic. Thx for sharing this problem. That is the problem, I cannot pinpoint where the problem is and feel like I may have to totally rebuild our version control system. If Harry haphazardly locks 30 files in a directory named images because he's unsure of which files he needs to change, yet changes only four of those files, when he runs svn commit images, the process will still release all 30 locks. It's proof that the lock was created in that particular working copy, and not somewhere else by some other client. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
I'd advise you not to do it, but it's up to you ;- Hope I could be of any help. Subversion, Jenkins has create new authentication now and works fine now. You have to give user2 read access to the root path in order for him to be able to create branches. But when she passes --force, the authentication and authorization requirements are ignored, and the remote lock is broken. Could the issue be: 1. In our example, if you really need to change the file from an alternative working copy, you would need to break the lock and relock the file.
Also, I was able to commit to other repositories using the exact same permissions. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. In particular, the pre-lock and pre-unlock hooks allow administrators to decide when lock creation and lock releases are allowed to happen. When the lock is released, the file becomes read-only again. She can accomplish this by using svn unlock with --force and then svn lock back-to-back, but there's a small chance that somebody else might lock the file between the two commands. Shouldn't it use the authentication on slave only? There's your authz file for the current repository you should customize.