On Monday, February 14, "Win32 M$" wrote:
> >In the CVS locking discussion it is interesting because CVS
> >already supports locking but in a really brain-dead way.
> >Now if we really want to make CVS simpler, lets start
> >a thread about REMOVING the current locking system. Then
> >CVS would only be concurrent and the argument would make more logical
> >sense.
>
> Well, removing the locking would also remove the CVS, so I am thinking about
> 'isolating' the locks first. Current implementation would serve the purpose,
> if it went under control...
Aha! There we go, somebody makes a totally usefull suggestion of removing the
currently horrible "locking" kludge, and you don't like it. Hey, the manual
said "these 'locks' may go away"...
> - eg. I would like to disallow the locking to
> certain group of files, identified by the extension of the file.
Unix filenames (yes, I know CVS is used elsewhere too) do not have
extensions...
> I am surprised there is no response from the SourceGear or whoever is making
> the changes in the official CVS code. Seems they are too busy, or they also
> do not (want to) see that current locking harms CVS...?
You are quite obviously not with the times. To the best of my knowledge,
CVS (at least cyclic.com) has been sold to someone else...
> K.J. Paradise, are you there? Anybody?
> There are changes in the official CVS made, I am monitoring it on the
> anonymous CVS server - so somebody must be there...?
You're not on the developers list? :-)
--Toby.
