Am 08.10.2010 um 16:19 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Stephan Witt wrote:
>>> but i still dont like we dont care about this consitently. the solution
>>> would be to push
>>> this conde into lyxvc.
>>
>> I wouldn't vote against such move. :-)
>
> can you move it please?
Yes, I do it when working on the backport of my changes.
I didn't do that first because of you said the API should remain stable.
>> Where is the conflict?
>>
>> The conflict is when more than one user is changing the *same part* of the
>> document.
> ...
>> The conflict is detected later by cvs on "cvs update".
>
> yes. i meant something like what we currently do with svn:
>
> cvs update > file.log
> if contains(file.log,"^C ")
> dialog("Error when updating from repository, You have to manually
> resolve the conflicts NOW!")
>
> but its up to you. the current state is better than it was.
Yes, thanks. I read the SVN solution already and was thinking of doing
something similar...
I think it would make a big difference for collaborative work.
>
>>> please can you update our additional manual with the current state of art
>>> for CVS and also suggest typical lyx use cases for cvs regime? mean cvs
>>> user has probaly no idea about cvs edit and so on.
>>>
>>> also add some note into revision control item in newinlyx20 wiki...
>>
>> This I can do. I'm on vacation next two weeks. Some time should be
>> available...
>
> thanks.
> pavel
