>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 04:05:42 (GMT), Bryon Lape wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout >> >> 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.
>Obviously you've missed the point about how rare merging (automatic or >by hand) is necessary in practice..... >Perhaps you should ask the developers participating in any of the large >freeware projects using CVS just how often they "waste" any time doing >merging tasks. I don't believe that merging is rare at all. In fact, I encourage merging often because many small merges are faster and easier than a few large ones. That's the key to the success of the concurrent development paradigm: Keep everyone close together in their workspaces without foisting other people's changes upon them in surprising ways. If you let people's workspaces diverge too far, then you fall into the same trap that is common with non-concurrent tools: The merges get big and cumbersome, to the point that the bulk of the effort goes into resolving conflicts rather than completing automatic or trivial (copy) merges. In the end, productivity is probably the same in either method. Developers spend a lot of time getting coffee every day while their automatic merges complete, or they slave away for hours resolving conflicts once every couple of weeks. But perception is everything here; letting the automation succeed is easier than thinking about interactions of conflicting code. >--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
