In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bryon Lape wrote: >"Greg A. Woods" wrote: > >> Read Berliner's whole paper. Understand what it means to "force" >> developers to use a "parallel" development paradigm and learn what the >> benefits are. > >The benefits add up to zero. Now, if it did method locking, that would be helpful, >protective AND productive. Without some sort of locking, having developers waste >time with doing merging by hand is counterproductive.
Nobody who actually has experience with parallel development could possibly say something so utterly clueless. Try it first, then talk. CVS doesn't require hand merging. When you perform a cvs update operation, then new changes in the repository are automatically incorporated into your working copy. Only when a conflict arises do you have to do resolution by hand. Conflicts tend to occur rarely, and are usually very easy to resolve. You will find that it takes less time to resolve the odd conflict than to wait for someone's lock to be released. So overall, productivity is boosted rather than reduced. Is there any hard, statistical data to back this up? No. But find someone who has done parallel development with reasonable tools, and who will testify that it was difficult or that it reduced productivity. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
