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 email@example.com.
Tony, Exclusive locks are like cancer - they spread and reach the point of no return very quickly because they penalise anybody trying to work in a concurent way. After not being able to complete their work because of somebody's locks people learn to reserve the files they want to work with (and a couple extra just in case they need them later). There is no easy way out of that vicious circle. It just becomes a rutine and reduces version control system to a mere backup system. In the case of exclusive edit there is a simple remedy to the above scenario: allow to override the lock. It doesn't have to be simple but it should not involve external intervention (admin override is not an option, most admins doesn't want to touch things like that). It would not be the first time - the old admin locks (admin -l) allowed anybody to unlock the file by giving revision explicitly (admin -urev). Majority of users, and most of those using locks, didn't realize that and locked themself happily to death, yet it allowed a smart person to unlock the files and complete their job in concurent fashion shall the need arise. Perhaps a similiar approach can be applied to a new option? Best Regards, Jerzy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Hoyle" <tmh at nodomain.org> Newsgroups: support.cvsnt To: <cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 0:33 Subject: Re: [cvsnt] Re: Why edit -x? > Jerzy Kaczorowski wrote: > > the problems caused by typical exclusive locking. It's a great advantage and > > it should be exploited rather than adding new and completely unneccesary > > option to the edit command that effectively turns CVS into un-concurent > > versions system. > > How? It's just an option. If you don't want to use it don't use it - > no functionality has been removed. > > > On a side note, it appears from your comments that the decision to add the > > exclusive edits is driven by the CVSNT going "commercial". It's very sad to > > see that going the wrong way so soon :( > > I'm not sure what to make of that comment. You really think that > someone putting enormous amounts of time and money into the development > of cvsnt isn't going to affect the future development? > > There's barely a feature that's been added that hasn't had some > discussion behind the scenes (and I still have veto over what goes in... > if I object strongly it doesn't happen). > > That doesn't mean I'm going to cripple the future sales of the > commercial side simply because of a bit of wording and about the 5 lines > of code that comprise the -x option. > > Tony > _______________________________________________ > 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 >