[ On Monday, February 14, 2000 at 10:58:20 (-0500), John Macdonald wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS File Locking
>
> File, not modules. The (god forbid) MS Word documentation that has
> to acompany each module, or the jpeg icon for the module, etc. The
> few binary files that are a part of the module. Making them a
> separate module ensures that they are poorly maintained.
If you're only talking about a few files then there's no real need for
hard locking at all. Conflict detection of non-mergable files can be
done easily enough if you want to support that feature and for a few
files the logical approach is to simply assign responsibility for
changing those files to one or two specific developers who will learn to
avoid conflicts without locks, and outside of CVS.
CVS is not a substitute for management. :-)
> But you refuce to permit 99% concurrent along with 1% locked, forcing
> 100% locked instead. That disenfranchizes the converts, and prevents
> any further preaching to the skeptics.
Bull. Requiring locking for 1% of the files is total nonsense.
Co-ordinating changes to that small number of files, even in a
relatively large project, is very very very easily managed outside of
CVS. I know from first-hand experience this is true.
> Or is "go to another tool" really saying "give up on concurrent even
> though it is vastly better for almost everything you do".
Not exactly. It's more like "I give up on trying to sell you the
benefits of concurrent development. You're obviously not going to be
happy here right now but if you change your mind then please come back
then."
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
