[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/16/2000 12:24:54 AM
>The claim that concurrent development is sufficient is stated as a
>justification to why CVS only supports the copy-modify-merge paradigm,
>just as Sun's NSE tool which they refer to as the documented source of
>the idea. I have always interpreted that to mean that CVS forces
>concurrent development and to date I don't remember anyone giving any
>substantial rebuttal to that interpretation.
>
>One can easily conclude that since the author found concurrent
>development to be a correct and useful approach that indeed he found no
>reason to allow serialised development at the same time and thus within
>the confines of CVS there is no room for any form of support for
>serialised development.
Sufficient does not imply necessary.
>In the end we have also shown that it is not necessary for CVS to have
>hard locks in order to deal with a few unmergable files.
I agree.
>Whether you
>agree or not relates directly to how well you buy into the claim that
>the copy-modify-merge paradigme is correct and useful for software
>developers.
Maybe.
Noel
