On Tuesday, February 15, "Win32 M$" wrote:
>
> As a purist, you should be waking up in the middle of the night with the
> scream: "Lock, Locks everywhere!" ;) That is how it works - watch how many
> times the first question from the new users posted to this list is: How do I
> lock the stuff? And, guess what happens next - they are told to read the
> manual. They do. They search for 'lock' keyword. They find "cvs admin -l".
> At this moment they scream "Eureka!" and happy ever after "dumb-lock" every
> single file, with the strange impression that these locks seem to promitive.
> But it is the free software, so what the heck.
> This is death of concurency. And it is said :(
But yet you advocate exclusive locks? I fail to see how the exclusive
locking model you propose will be any different, other than in the way
that you happen to work with it.
> I would like to see this stop happening. I want the locks to be hard to turn
> on, and difficult to maintain. I was even considering to put a piece of code
> which would randomly (with ratio 2/1) generate the error during locking just
> to discourage it :)
Great, so we get rid of 'cvs admin -l', right? That would make them 100%
hard to turn on. Problem solved. But no, that would impact your current
use of CVS too much, and as you've said (paraphrased) "you'd have to drop
CVS as a viable tool" at that time...
> >One of the repeated things that keep coming up, both here on the list, and in
> >the manual(s) is that the RCS backend should/could be replaced sometime.
> >Maybe with xdelta type stuff. At that point, and maybe sooner, the 'cvs admin'
> >hook to the RCS locks (which 'cvs admin -l' are) will go away.
>
> I don't see it happening. CVS is being trade-off, it doesn't help.
Just because you don't see it happening, does not mean it is not happening. I've
not seen any code from you either concerning this supposed improvement in locking
that you have been talking about. Yet I don't tell you that I don't see it
happening.
> >I'm telling you there are better ways to handle your VB files.
>
> Maybe, but my VB files is only an example. I want a generic solution.
I believe your original reason for jumping on the locking bandwagon was
due to you having trouble with your VB files. Several people on the list
gave you solutions *using the current CVS code* to this problem. No
locking required.
--Toby.
