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.
Oliver Giesen wrote: > Eliot wrote: > >> So, the question becomes is the code or the documentation in error? >> My (already expressed opinion) is that it is the code. > > > I'm quite sure it's the documentation (and the source comments) that's > behind. From what I remember the problem here is that CVSNT nowadays > supports a server-side cvsrc file which might contain things like > entries to enforce Reserved Edits, like: > > edit -c > commit -c > > > Thus, the client *has* to contact the server in order to make sure > there's nothing like that in cvsrc or, if there is, that noone else is > editing that file. Of course that's just an example. Any option given in > the server-side cvsrc should be honored by the client. Otherwise there'd > be no point in having something like that in the first place. IMO any option in the server side cvsrc should be *enforced* by the server. I.e prevent client from commiting a change when a file is being reserved edited. I can recompile (in theory anyway ;-) the client to ignore the servers cvsrc. Or I am forced to 'go behind the back of' CVS and make my local files editable, losing the ability to unedit etc. Nothing is gained by this result. - Eliot