[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/18/2000 06:05:47 PM
>Well, there was no such people in the recent discussion. There were people
>who said: Gee, there is locking in CVS, and THEN two people can not edit the
>same file! These want to get rid of locking. There is the second group of
>people, who said that perhaps instead of removing of the lock we could
>actually isolate the locking to the small amount of files (1%) and then we
>could have 99% files fully concurent. There were also the people who
>triggered the whole thing by asking "How do I lock the files in CVS?". These
>have been answered with the actual status and availability of locking. They
>are new to the CVS, so they ask. It is natural. They will adopt the
>concurent model probably, once to told to do that. We could help these new
>people to adopt the concurency if the locks were more under control. They
>will not attempt to "fix that" - they have what they need already. They
>might, however, complain about the locks. The complain is justified - lock
>are poorly implemented and that is the fact.
I think most people who want locks in CVS want the *feature* of locks, not the
*intent* of locks. If people concentrated on the *intent* of locks, they should
be happy with the "cvs edit -c" patch and "cvs watch".
Noel
