[cvsnt] "reserved edit"

Erv Walter erv at epicsystems.com
Tue May 27 20:46:45 BST 2003

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.

Our "solution" (really just a workaround) is to use .cvsrc to include -c
automatically so that people don't have to remember to use it.  We
install a default .csvrc file when we setup a machine for the first
time.  If you can't practically force the use of a .cvsrc, this
workaround may not work for you. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Silton [mailto:rick_silton at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 2:30 PM
To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook

This is sort of a cross-posting as I posted virtually the same message
to the cvsgui group, but I think this is the right forum for the

At issue (for me anyway) is whether edit -c is sufficient for
controlling access to non-mergable files (Word, gifs, etc).  Anyway
here's most of what I posted to the cvsgui group.  Please let me know if
I'm missing something!


Suppose the case where one person (say Bob) does the right thing and
uses edit -c (of course assuming the file is a binary), then someone
else (Sue) comes along and forgets that they are supposed to do the -c
and just does edit.  Then they both are happily editing the file and
whoever commits first "wins" (really they both lose).  In the olden days
when people had to lock with admin -l then if Bob does the admin -l and
Sue forgets then she can still edit, but can't commit.  She wasted her
time, but Bob doesn't have to pay which seems more fair than "first in

That all being said... there's another case where Bob (the first person)
forgets and just does a edit instead of edit -c, but Sue comes along
later and remembers.  In this case everything is fine as Sue will not be
able to complete the edit -c since Bob is listed as an editor.  This is
better than the old admin -l result because in that case both Bob & Sue
could edit the file even though only Sue could commit.

Net result - in my mind both schemes are error prone, but with the old
way I could institute procedures to improve the odds (i.e. tell people
to use edit and check for editors AND use admin -l).  Now I can't do
that anymore (with CVSNT and WinCVS 1.3).  To fix it I believe the
server has to be involved to prevent any edit (and commit) no matter
what, whenever someone has indicated they want a reserved edit.

So... can someone provide insight into why edit -c was done the way it
was and why admin -l was deprecated?  That might at least help me
understand when it is applicable.  Also - is there any thoughts toward
bringing admin -l back (or something similar that preferably didn't
require admin group priveledges)?

- Rick

cvsnt mailing list
cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook
http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt https://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/en.asp#downcvs

More information about the cvsnt mailing list
Download the latest CVSNT, TortosieCVS, WinCVS etc. for Windows 8 etc.
@CVSNT on Twitter   CVSNT on Facebook