Noel L Yap wrote:
> OK, the strategy I've picked is to submit three separate patches:
> 1. "multiple_edits" which will allow multiple edits per user per file.
> 2. "reservations" which will allow users to have "reserved" locks on files.
> 3. "multiple_edits+reservations" which will have both of the above (minus merge
> conflicts, of course).
>
> If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd like to hear it.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was out of the office for a week. Oh,
notice the address change too - I work for ColabNet now instead of OpenAvenue, but
I'm still doing much the same work.
No better suggestion - that sounds pretty good, but you did leave me with a
question.
Are these patched backwards/forwards compatible? i.e. what happens when the
client and server are out of synch on any of these patches?
ME = multiple_edits, R = reservations, MER = multiple_edits+reservations, ! = not
present (pre-patch):
Client Server Result
---------- ---------- ----------
ME !ME ???
!ME ME ???
R !R ???
!R R ???
MER !MER ???
!MER MER ???
Derek
--
Derek Price CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
--
Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up!
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
