No, it is not. I think you need to figure out why the manager doesn't want
to use concurrent development models especially if the advisory locks patch
is installed to better control the process.
Noel
David Masterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Andrew
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
Tell the manager to shed his or her superstitions, and work with
the facts. The facts are:
- Concurrent development works just fine.
- Your team already likes it.
- Strict locking does not prevent concurrency, it only reduces
it to a coarse
Kaz Kylheku writes:
[...with respect to CVS...]
Tell the manager to shed his or her superstitions, and work with the
facts. The facts are:
- Concurrent development works just fine.
- Your team already likes it.
- Strict locking does not prevent concurrency, it only reduces
it to a
A huge portion of Streamed Lines deals with branches. Now, consider that
unreserved checkouts are sort of like (if not exactly) virtual branches...
IOW, if the manager is _really_ against concurrent development, then he/she
should be against any version control tool that allows branches as
David Masterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Andrew writes:
Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
(Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the
manual that comes with the source code?
Given the CVS model
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Cooper wrote:
David Masterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Andrew writes:
Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
(Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the
manual that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
Tell the manager to shed his or her superstitions, and work with
the facts. The facts are:
- Concurrent development works just fine.
- Your team already likes it.
- Strict locking does not prevent concurrency, it only reduces
it to a coarse granularity:
Kaz Kylheku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
UClD7.130841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:UClD7.130841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Cooper
wrote:
David Masterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Andrew writes:
Has anyone setup reserved
How does one use the reserved locks?
Jerzy Kaczorowski wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Sander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev
release
of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only
privately
I sent out instructions within the several threads about this. I guess you
missed it 'cos you were too busy ranting. Please check the archives.
Noel
How does one use the reserved locks?
Jerzy Kaczorowski wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Sander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's
- Original Message -
From: Paul Sander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev
release
of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only
privately
in their own shops. Maybe they don't advertise them for fear of being
Because there is no group, and there are no conflicts. This is just
another Chicken Little yelling that the sky is falling. Actually
a step beneath Chicken Little, because something actually did fall on
Chicken Little's head, it wasn't just pure imagination. :)
Yes, I was giving him the
:58 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote:
]
Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
What do you mean by method locking? Locking individual parts
of a file? It wouldn't do you any good.
Well, not with CVS anyway! :-)
Maybe in a multi-user smalltalk image it might (since you only ever edit
one
OK, then exactly what are you expecting from the link? Maybe SourceForge
was down when you tried it? Have you tried it again? Have you tried
following the step-by-step instructions I sent out?
Noel
I simply clicked on the link you supplied. I even copied it to IE just to
make sure
-Original Message-
From: Bryon Lape [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Wrong.
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so
many conflicts
while so many other groups (thousands?) are
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
CVS doesn't require hand merging. When you perform a cvs update
operation, then new changes in the repository are automatically
incorporated into your working copy. Only when a conflict arises do
you have to do resolution by hand. Conflicts tend to occur rarely, and
are
Netscape tries and tries, but nothing is ever returned by this link.
Paul Sander wrote:
Ich funde es bei http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=422733group_id=4680atid=304680
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Wo? Ich kann nicht es gefunden.
>Paul Sander wrote:
>>
It sounds like the software your group is maintaining needs factoring to
decrease the likelihood that several developers are modifying the same
method. It also sounds like your group can use some communication.
Noel
Greg A. Woods wrote:
Read Berliner's whole paper. Understand what it means
--- Bryon Lape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
CVS doesn't require hand merging. When you perform a cvs update
operation, then new changes in the repository are automatically
incorporated into your working copy. Only when a conflict arises do
you have to do resolution by
If you've really made up your mind then don't use CVS. But think about
this first: Why are you the only group I know who has tried parallel
development and didn't like it?
Noel
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/10/2001 at 23:03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read Berliner's whole
Conflicts are extremely easy to produce and may not be easily resolved.
The issue it seems you are having is that on a regular basis, two or more
developers making large abouts of unrelated changes to same sections of
code.
This problem cannot be solved by locking checkouts, or by any change
You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so many conflicts
while so many other groups (thousands?) are not.
Noel
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
CVS doesn't require hand merging. When you perform a cvs update
operation, then new changes in the repository are automatically
incorporated
Conflicts are easy to produce *when you have multiple developers working on
the same segments of code*.
If you are doing a lot of that without any coordination between the
developers, you are going to have a lot of problems. Period.
___
Info-cvs
-Original Message-
From: Bryon Lape [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The benefits add up to zero. Now, if it did method locking,
that would be helpful,
protective AND productive. Without some sort of locking,
having developers waste
time with doing merging by hand is
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 11:22:37 (GMT), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
Conflicts are extremely easy to produce and may not be easily resolved.
Hmmm. and how is this different from any other change control
process? In non-parallel processes
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote: ]
Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
What do you mean by method locking? Locking individual parts
of a file? It wouldn't do you any good.
Well, not with CVS anyway! :-)
Maybe in a multi-user smalltalk
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Greg A. Woods
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 9:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: CVS-II Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 00:06:34 (-0400), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:51:54 (-0700), Gianni Mariani wrote: ]
Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
There is a case where Greg would agree with you and that's in the case of
binary files or files that can't be merged automagically - like jpegs or
pngs.
yes, of course
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg A. Woods wrote:
Even locking without lock contention won't solve all conflict
scenarios. Commit wars are possible with any change control process.
Even if you lock an entire repository, you can still get conflicts;
conflicts outside of the system.
Suppose I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bryon Lape wrote:
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
CVS doesn't require hand merging. When you perform a cvs update
operation, then new changes in the repository are automatically
incorporated into your working copy. Only when a conflict arises do
you have to do resolution by
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley,
David wrote: ]
Subject: RE: CVS
I got there by going to http://sourceforge.net/ and typing rcvs in the
search field. That produced a table of about a dozen patches, one of
which had a suitable one-description. I clicked on that, then on the
download button.
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netscape tries and tries,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so many conflicts
while so many other groups (thousands?) are not.
Because there is no group, and there are no conflicts. This is just
another Chicken Little yelling that the sky is
One would hope that one's shop is not using the same branch for both
maintenance and new features. That kind of thing is best done on
separate branches (where the two schedules don't interfere with each
other). The bug fix is later merged into the new development when
it's appropriate to do so.
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 04:05:42 (GMT), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
The benefits add up to zero. Now, if it did method locking, that would be helpful,
protective AND productive. Without some sort
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3 developers (A,B,C) need to fix file X.
A is making some major changes, adding lots of new functionality.
B and C need to make a minor tweak to the file.
In a CVS model:
B anc C can be done and outa there in minutes and essentially forget about
it.
]
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote: ]
Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
What do you mean by method locking? Locking individual parts
of a file? It wouldn't do you any good.
Well, not with CVS anyway! :-)
Maybe in a multi-user smalltalk image
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
One would hope that one's shop is not using the same branch for both
maintenance
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Sander wrote:
Under those conditions, almost any version control tool provides the
necessary merge tool.
Your inexperience is showing. There are version control tools in *broad*
use that have extremely support for branching and merging.
Exhibit A: Visual
Wrong.
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so many conflicts
while so many other groups (thousands?) are not.
Because there is no group, and there are no conflicts. This is just
another
I simply clicked on the link you supplied. I even copied it to IE
just to make sure Nutscraper wasn't having a problem.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was able to use Netscape get to the patches.
Exactly what are you doing?
Noel
Netscape tries and tries, but nothing is ever returned by this link.
Yeah, file locking is really unproductive. I just love wasting all that time
tryin' to figure out why the merge didn't happen and do it all by hand. My boss
really likes all the extra cost too.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most you could hope for in CVS is to install a patch that allows
The RCVS part on source forge seems to be dead. Is anyone really developing
locking for CVS?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most you could hope for in CVS is to install a patch that allows
advisory locks -- reserved locks are counter to the purpose of CVS. You
can find a version of the patch
If your question really is: Is anyone modifying CVS to support locking?
Then I believe the answer is yes.
If your question really is: Is anyone making locking a mainstream feature
of CVS? Then I believe the answer is no.
Despite the outcry to have this capability, no one with commit access
The patches are there for anyone to use. Last I heard, all that's stopping
them from being included with the standard distribution are the lack of
test and doc patches. You're welcome to work on them. Welcome to the
world of open source.
Noel
The RCVS part on source forge seems to be dead.
Paul Sander wrote:
If your question really is: Is anyone modifying CVS to support locking?
Then I believe the answer is yes.
Who? And where may I get it?
If your question really is: Is anyone making locking a mainstream feature
of CVS? Then I believe the answer is no.
shame
No link to any files produces anything. One cannot download a patch that is not
there.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patches are there for anyone to use. Last I heard, all that's stopping
them from being included with the standard distribution are the lack of
test and doc patches. You're
If your question really is: Is anyone making locking a mainstream
feature
of CVS? Then I believe the answer is no.
shame
I think getting real reserved locks into CVS is impossible without
chainging CVS so much as to make it not CVS anymore. Of course, you're
welcome to try.
Noel
This
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 02:17:41 (GMT), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
Paul Sander wrote:
If your question really is: Is anyone making locking a mainstream feature
of CVS? Then I believe the answer is no.
shame
Repeat after me: CVS
There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev release
of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only privately
in their own shops. Maybe they don't advertise them for fear of being blasted
by Greg.
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/10/2001 at 23:03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read Berliner's whole paper. Understand what it means to force
developers to use a parallel development paradigm and learn what the
benefits are.
I understand it, there aren't any.
Wo? Ich kann nicht es gefunden.
Paul Sander wrote:
There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev release
of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only privately
in their own shops. Maybe they don't advertise them for fear of being blasted
by
Greg A. Woods wrote:
Read Berliner's whole paper. Understand what it means to force
developers to use a parallel development paradigm and learn what the
benefits are.
The benefits add up to zero. Now, if it did method locking, that would be helpful,
protective AND productive. Without some
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bryon Lape wrote:
Greg A. Woods wrote:
Read Berliner's whole paper. Understand what it means to force
developers to use a parallel development paradigm and learn what the
benefits are.
The benefits add up to zero. Now, if it did method locking, that would be
Ich funde es bei
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=422733group_id=4680atid=304680
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wo? Ich kann nicht es gefunden.
Paul Sander wrote:
There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev release
of CVS. I
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 01:18:55AM -0700, Andrew wrote:
Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
(Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the manual
that comes with the source code?
Try http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/ for a very good book about CVS.
Andrew writes:
Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
(Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the
manual that comes with the source code?
Given the CVS model of unreserved checkouts, why do you need reserved
checkouts? Also, are you talking
57 matches
Mail list logo
