In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Cooper wrote: >David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... >> >>>>> Andrew writes: >> >> > Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix >> > (Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the >> > manual that comes with the source code? >> >> Given the CVS model of unreserved checkouts, why do you need reserved >> checkouts? Also, are you talking about reserved checkouts of a file >> or an entire product? > >We use CVS (ver 1.11) and we like the unreserved checkout model, but
The what model? You seem to still be clinging to the biased terminology used by the vendors of inferior version control tools. ``Unreserved'' is a negative word that suggests risk and hassle, like an unreserved airplane ticket, restaurant table or hotel room. >the manager of a different project here wants to use our repository >only if we can enforce reserved checkouts on a per-file basis (they >don't want to use watches). Is it possible (and manageable) to make >CVS do this? Tell the manager to shed his or her superstitions, and work with the facts. The facts are: - Concurrent development works just fine. - Your team already likes it. - Strict locking does not prevent concurrency, it only reduces it to a coarse granularity: coarse enough to interfere with productivity, but not coarse enough to eradicate conflicts. To eliminate conflicts, you have to lock the entire repository so that only one developer at a time can do anything on the software base as a whole. Since it is already working for you, you can invite the manager to witness, or participate in, some of your day to day version control activities. -- . . . . . . <- Mysterious Powdery Substance . _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs