On Tuesday, February 15, "Win32 M$" wrote:
>
> Well, first of all, CVS doesn't force the concurent development, and
> moreother it promotes the locking. The only stupid arguments are so far
> comming from you. You are so blind and emotional that you don't see the
> simple facts and reality. We WANT to force and promote the cocnurent
> development, while you seem to only try to maintain the current situation no
> matter what.
By definition, exclusive locks will prevent concurrency to occur. And you
are talking about exclusive locks. Yes, it will be for one file at a time,
but it will prevent concurrency for that particular file. So from a purists
point of view, and completely irrelevant at this point in the flame-war,
exclusive locks do not help concurrency, but retard it.
You will have to find another argument for exclusive locks. They are out
there, but this is not one of them.
--Toby.
