[cvsnt-dev] Re: Feature Request: warnings on edit

Christian Schmidt christian2.schmidtREMOVE_THIS at gmx.de
Tue Jun 29 12:04:50 BST 2004

Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.

> If the client could be hacked to do it it still requires a round trip
> to the server to check the edit status anyway - eg. edit -c basically
> sends an 'editors' command then looks to see if there's any output..
> it's not more efficient than doing the two commands separately at all

It's far more efficient for the :ext-protocol for example.

> (although arguably more convenient), so the frontend might as well do
> it - as some do.
> It's not normally an error to edit an out-of-date file simply because
> by the time you commit it's not impossible that someone will have
> added a new revision anyway - if someone wants to work around the
> reserved edits they can very easily.

But if everyone wants to work with reserved edits and someone forgets to
call update before edit you might end up in a conflict.

BTW I think edit on tagged or not up-to-date files _is_ an error - or at
least it's an action that the user should be warned of.

> I would question whether anyone would ever edit 'many' files and if
> they were whether CVS was the best tool for them.

Why? We use this feature sometimes to temporarily prevent users from
modifing certain directories.

> Edit doesn't know anything about branches (and actually knows nothing
> of the file it's editing.. it just assumes you're doing something
> sane), so there is no error on edit - you hold the edit on the file
> (although you are editing a revision).

But you can't edit a tagged version of the file. At least you can't commit
changes to a tagged file, so consequently you shouldn't be allowed to edit


More information about the cvsnt-dev mailing list