[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Future CVS Development
From: |
Greg A. Woods |
Subject: |
RE: Future CVS Development |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:32:17 -0400 (EDT) |
[ On Monday, June 18, 2001 at 14:39:53 (-0700), Kostur, Andre wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: Future CVS Development
>
> Granted, if the user chooses to circumvent the source code control system,
> you're in trouble, and that's where merge becomes useful as a safety net.
> But if CVS could enforce that a user declares their edits before allowing
> them to commit to the repository (OK, for files declared as COPY, and -kb
> files. Ones where CVS cannot automatically handle conflicts), this would
> allow people to checkout a copy of the repository without blocking anybody,
> but not allowing them to edit the binary files without notifying the
> repository.
But CVS doesn't WANT such a capability! It's contrary to the core design!
If you can't handle concurrent editing of non-text/non-mergable files
then DON'T USE CVS!!!!!
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <address@hidden> <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>
- Future CVS Development, Kostur, Andre, 2001/06/18
- Re: Future CVS Development, Noel L Yap, 2001/06/18
- RE: Future CVS Development, Kostur, Andre, 2001/06/18
- RE: Future CVS Development, Noel L Yap, 2001/06/18
- RE: Future CVS Development, Kostur, Andre, 2001/06/18
- RE: Future CVS Development,
Greg A. Woods <=
- RE: Future CVS Development, Kostur, Andre, 2001/06/19
- Re: Future CVS Development, Alexander Kamilewicz, 2001/06/20
RE: Future CVS Development, Noel L Yap, 2001/06/19
RE: Future CVS Development, Noel L Yap, 2001/06/19