Hi Tobias,
>I did not say that you started this thread. I said that you jumped on the
>locking thread, when you posted about needing this feature for your VB
>files.
>Again, several people gave you workable solutions, without needing locks,
>for versioning your VB files with CVS. In other words, your VB file
>example
>is bogus.
Also several people agreed that there are the umergable files out there,
which would be better handled with locks. These files are already handled
with locks, not with 'workable solutions'. It encourages to lock all the
files, not only the unmergable ones. That is a chain which is leading to
facist locking and concurency has no place any more... This is life, this is
how it goes...
> > The whole point is that current CVS code is not perfect - we look for
>the
> > ways to make it better. You look for the ways to ignore the problem and
>keep
> > the wrong model.
>
>Which is the wrong model? At one point you say "remove locks", the next
>time
>you say "need locks"...
The wrong model is the one with the name 'cocnurent' but with the facist
locking out of control. It seems you only can think black and white and can
not accept the fact that life has a full scale of colors. I said (re)move
locks. I said to put them in the right place, put them in isolation, but not
remove completely. I said it many times, yet you still try to cath me by
words, pushing me to say black or to say white (that is to 'locks' or 'not
to locks'), but I will insist to say colorful, I know the locks are not
necessary in 99% cases, but I also know they are needed in remaining 1%. Is
that finally clear for you?
BR,
Jerzy
The first thing they don't teach you at school: "Never say never".
All the issues not related to the list please send to me in private, thanks.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
