Kate Ebneter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 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? There are TONS of very good source code
> control/versioning systems using synchronization via locking. There
> are very few that permit or properly support CONCURRENT development,
> let alone make it the center of the development model. I _NEED_ CVS to
> be a CONCURRENT versioning system. I don't need locks,
I agreed with your post up until this paragraph, which seems to
express a sentiment so common that I thought I'd offer some
feedback from the newbie perspective.
Let me ask: what is it about locking and concurrency that makes
them mutually exclusive? Other software manages to find design
patterns that allow them to handle configurable policies. (The
X11 mantra "mechanism not policy" is a great example) Why not CVS?
Why not let the repository maintainer choose their policy?
It seems to me that nobody is asking the developers to consider
changing CVS so that it no longer properly supports concurrent
development. Aren't you misrepresenting their position when you
suggest otherwise?
Configurable
Versioning
System
(think anyone would notice?)
