On Wednesday, February 16, "Win32 M$" wrote:
> >And as for
> >locking, I'm sorry, but what part of CONCURRENT Versioning System don't
> >people understand??? If y'all wanna turn it into Control Via
> >Synchronization, well, could you please do it to another source code
> >control system? Please?
>
> You should listen to your own advice and read the proposals and posts before
> you say something about them. As it is easy to show CVS has locks already.
I give up. I've tried to reason with you, I've tried to understand you, I've
even asked for clarification. I think I'm going to go back to my original
way of dealing with people and e-mail in general. Anything that advocates
anything related to Win32, M$, or BG, will summarily get redirected to
/dev/null. IE: In case you missed it, post all you wish, you are now in my
kill file. Not that it would matter much to you...
> And in the very facist way it kills the concurent model on the spot. We are
> debating what to do with locks that are already there to make CVS concurent
> FOR REAL. You seem to belong to the ideologically charged group who do not
> see the facts, and filter them out... That is blindness, you know?
No, and this is the last I'll post on this particular subject. That is not
blindness. We know there are "locks" in CVS. We also know that they are not
there to be used lightly. The manual says so, a good portion of the people on
this list say so. If you choose to ignore that, and use them anyways, then
you are the one ignoring things.
> As for Greg:
> >I don't understand the motives of those who attack Greg without really
> >understanding what he's saying,
>
> They can't - most of the time Greg only replies to change the tools you
> using or to read the paper. That doesn't help to understand him. He can not
> make his point without offending people - so he will always be under attack.
Bull, he is rarely under attack from people who have been on this list for
quite some time. Yes, he does have quite "radical" view sometimes, but every
once in a while, he does hit on a good idea. I tell him how I feel about the
ones I don't like, and guess what, he usually responds a little later with
more thought on the subject, either clarifying his standpoint (pointing out
things I missed), or changing his standpoint to address changes and issues
that I've pointed out. This is what you call constructive criticism.
As a "last" shot, and the people who have been on this list for a while
will know what I'm talking about, the C/N ratio on this list has steadily
dropped. (C == Clue, N == Noise). I urge people who are repeatedly being
told that "this is not the CVS way" read the CVS documentation out there.
Study up on RCS and SCCS. Then after that is done, go out and read papers
and manuals for Aegis, PRCS, and NUCM. Once you've done that, re-read the
CVS manuals and papers. Read portions of the CVS source and log entries.
Now you will be in a position, having read the list for 1-2 years, understanding
the issues, and will be in a position to actually converse intelligently
on the issues involved.
--Toby.
