That worries me. So far I have been the only one working with Leo in my company, but lately others have started to pick up Leo as well. As the main cooperation tool we use SVN, so I check in my Leo files as well. Now either we are all going to work with the same Leo files, which will probably lead to endless conflicts as everybody is then working simultaneously on the same files, or we will end up having multiple different Leo files pointing to the same set of files.
I understand that this will work fine as long as we are not using clones, but then we loose one of the best features of Leo! - Josef On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Largo84 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry if the answer is obvious, it's not to me. Should I avoid cloned > > nodes in @files that are referenced in different .leo files? > > Yes, you should avoid such clones, for the reasons you imply. Imo, > every piece of data, of whatever kind, should be "owned" by at most > one .leo file. If you break the rule you are going to expose yourself > to a delayed (and therefore insidious) form of the multiple update > problem. > > Besides being a technical problem, it could also be called a > management problem: just as no human manager would willingly share > responsibility for any set of code, no two .leo files should reference > the same data. > > Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
