Paul Sander wrote:
>
> >--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Kate Ebneter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
<snip>
>
> >Please, really, I'd really like to know why, if you want to do
> >serialized synchronized development using locking, you chose CVS in the
> >first place? There are many, many other suitable tools, many of them
> >just as free as CVS, that implement that paradigm perfectly well. And
> >there are many situations in which that is appropriate. But please,
> >consider: Why choose a hammer when what you want to do is drive a
> >screw?? And, why try to insist that there should be a tool that is both
> >hammer and screwdriver?
>
> The simple answer to your question about "why do people want locking
> in CVS" is that they prefer the concurrent model, but can't use it
> for all of their sources. In other words, they've found a need to have
> both methods at their disposal in the same project.
... and the existing support for locks in CVS does allow this, albeit at
some cost in difficulty. Frankly if you have a LARGE number of files in
your source tree that aren't version-controllable without locking, you
should seriously consider using a different repository for those file. I
would. I have. But that wasn't really the question I asked.
> As for the other stuff like reverting to RCS or SCCS, well, it turns
> out that CVS has one incredibly nice feature that those simpler systems
> don't: A centralized repository.
You can use RCS with a centralized repository. CVS does. :-) Just
because that's not the way it's usually used doesn't mean it can't be
used that way. And there are other systems (the majority of them, in
fact) that use locking and a centralized repository.
> As for bloat and unwieldiness, that's in the eye of the beholder.
> Every piece of software has features that are not used by some its
> users. That does not necessarily mean that it's bloated. And there
> has been a fair amount of discussion about how to implement locking
> in such a way that they integrate very well with the command structure
> and everyday use, so the operation of CVS remains familiar even when
> applied to files for which locking is required.
I agree with that, actually. What I'm wondering about is the people who
come along and say, hey, it doesn't do locks! What kind of source code
control system is this?? We'd better fix that! Two people can't edit the
same source files at the same time!
Kate Ebneter
Build Engineer and Rabbit Wrangler
DataRover Mobile Systems
