[RFC] Proof-of-Concept suggesting correct remote break-lock url (bug #250451)

[Jonathan Lange]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Andrew
Bennetts<andrew.bennetts at canonical.com> wrote:
> Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> [...]
>>  * it requires a new protocol version
>
> FWIW, It doesn't require a new protocol version if I'm skimming this
> correctly — it's true that old clients will give an ugly “Unexpected error
> from server” message if they get a LockWait error, but I think that's
> tolerable.  It's not like the existing behaviour is great either...
>
> If that isn't tolerable we can add newer versions of the *.lock_write verbs,
> and only transmit LockWait for those.
>

What do you think about the check for
'lockdir._DEFAULT_TIMEOUT_SECONDS == 0' to determine if we're on the
remote side? Is there a nicer way of doing that?

jml