On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:46:35AM -0500, John Lippiello wrote:
> My company uses the lock-modify-unlock model of software
> development. We are considering moving to CVS.
CVS is *far* from ideal for this model.
"cvs admin -l" is a kludgy backdoor way of accessing the
lower-layer RCS locking, which probably doesn't integrate at all
well with CVS proper. I don't know the specific problems, since
I've never used it, but I do recall reading here that problems
exist.
First, I would urge you to reconsider your dedication to
lock-modify-unlock (aka "reserved checkouts"). If the files you
want to manage are text, CVS's concurrent-edit-and-merge model is
typically far superior, even if it looks pretty scary at first.
If the files are mostly binary, though, or otherwise unmergable,
you're stuck with reserved checkouts; but in that case, CVS is
the wrong tool.
(I've argued in the past for more robust binary-file support in
CVS, and that people should feel free to use CVS to store binary
files, along with text, *in awareness of its shortcomings*;
rather than either try to deal with two version-control regimes,
or give up CVS's advantages for managing text files. I still
stand by those opinions.
But that's not the same as using CVS in a *primarily*
reserved-checkout mode, as you're considering. To do this would
impose all of the costs, but gain you few of the benefits.)
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything!
I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
- Anonymous
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
