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