[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout

From: Thornley, David
Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:30:13 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:46 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
> [ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley, 
> David wrote: ]
> > Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
> >
> > 
> > What do you mean by "method locking"?  Locking individual parts
> > of a file?  It wouldn't do you any good.
> Well, not with CVS anyway!  :-)
> Maybe in a multi-user smalltalk image it might (since you 
> only ever edit
> one method at a time

I was apparently unclear; I meant that method locking would do no
good for anybody who finds CVS unusable because of merge conflicts.
If people can work on separate methods OK, then using CVS it really
doesn't matter if they're parts of the same file or not, because the
changes won't conflict.

If, on the other hand, everybody is messing with widespread changes
all the time, which is basically what you'd have to do to have that
much trouble with CVS, method locking is no better than file locking,
probably more likely to cause deadlocks, and certainly more of a
pain to find who's using all the locks you need and why.

If you *want* to use a locking version control system on files
you edit in distinct segments, then I suppose locking by method
is more suitable to your desires than locking by file.  In that
situation, though, there's no reason not to go concurrent.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]