"Greg A. Woods" wrote:
>
> Yup. And the reason is that it would be absolutely against the design
> goals of CVS to build a hybrid environment. CVS is designed to *FORCE*
> concurrent development. If you don't like it then don't use it (and
> don't post stupid arguments about it either).
>
I don't believe it is designed to do that. It's freely available
open-source software, and I've never met anybody in the community
that wanted to force somebody to do development in one specific
way before. You may want it to do that, but that's a different
statement.
Besides, there are things that cannot be developed concurrently,
since they are unmergeable, for good reasons or bad. These have
to have some form of lock. (From experience, I think "cvs watch on/
cvs edit" is adequate locking, and hard locks would be no better
in practice. Others have different opinions.) I assume it is your
position that CVS should not be used in such cases.
If you want to force people to do things your way, please fork off
your version into something like FCVS: Fascistly Concurrent Versioning
System. Remove "cvs watch" and "cvs edit" and "cvs admin -l", since
they're just extra code. Then try and force people to use it, if
that's what drives you.
--
David H. Thornley Software Engineer
at CES International, Inc.: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (612)-694-2556
at home: (612)-623-0552 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
http://www.visi.com/~thornley/david/
