Hello all,
Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
(Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the manual
that comes with the source code?
If there is any info., please email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Many thanks in advance
Andrew
__
How does one use the reserved locks?
Jerzy Kaczorowski wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Sander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev
> release
> > of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only
> p
I sent out instructions within the several threads about this. I guess you
missed it 'cos you were too busy ranting. Please check the archives.
Noel
How does one use the reserved locks?
Jerzy Kaczorowski wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Sander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > T
David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Andrew writes:
>
> > Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
> > (Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the
> > manual that comes with the source code?
>
> Gi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Cooper wrote:
>David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > Andrew writes:
>>
>> > Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
>> > (Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
>Tell the manager to shed his or her superstitions, and work with
>the facts. The facts are:
>
>- Concurrent development works just fine.
>- Your team already likes it.
>- Strict locking does not prevent concurrency, it only reduces
> it to a coarse granula
"Kaz Kylheku" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
UClD7.130841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:UClD7.130841$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Cooper
wrote:
> >David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> > Andrew writes:
> >>
> >> >
No, it is not. I think you need to figure out why the manager doesn't want
to use concurrent development models especially if the advisory locks patch
is installed to better control the process.
Noel
David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Andre
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
>
>>Tell the manager to shed his or her superstitions, and work with
>>the facts. The facts are:
>>
>>- Concurrent development works just fine.
>>- Your team already likes it.
>>- Strict locking does not prevent concurrency, it only reduces
>> it to a co
> Kaz Kylheku writes:
[...with respect to CVS...]
> Tell the manager to shed his or her superstitions, and work with the
> facts. The facts are:
> - Concurrent development works just fine.
> - Your team already likes it.
> - Strict locking does not prevent concurrency, it only reduces
> i
A huge portion of Streamed Lines deals with branches. Now, consider that
unreserved checkouts are sort of like (if not exactly) virtual branches...
IOW, if the manager is _really_ against concurrent development, then he/she
should be against any version control tool that allows branches as well
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 01:18:55AM -0700, Andrew wrote:
> Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
> (Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the manual
> that comes with the source code?
Try http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/ for a very good book about CVS. P
The most you could hope for in CVS is to install a patch that allows
advisory locks -- reserved locks are counter to the purpose of CVS. You
can find a version of the patch (I think against cvs-1.11.1) at SourceForge
under project RCVS.
Once the patch is installed, tell the users that they must
> Andrew writes:
> Has anyone setup reserved checkout in CVS (ver 1.11.1p1) in Unix
> (Solaris)? Or is there any documentation on this other than the
> manual that comes with the source code?
Given the CVS model of unreserved checkouts, why do you need reserved
checkouts? Also, are you tal
Yeah, file locking is really unproductive. I just love wasting all that time
tryin' to figure out why the merge didn't happen and do it all by hand. My boss
really likes all the extra cost too.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The most you could hope for in CVS is to install a patch that allows
> ad
The RCVS part on source forge seems to be dead. Is anyone really developing
locking for CVS?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The most you could hope for in CVS is to install a patch that allows
> advisory locks -- reserved locks are counter to the purpose of CVS. You
> can find a version of the pat
If your question really is: "Is anyone modifying CVS to support locking?"
Then I believe the answer is "yes".
If your question really is: "Is anyone making locking a mainstream feature
of CVS?" Then I believe the answer is "no".
Despite the outcry to have this capability, no one with commit a
The patches are there for anyone to use. Last I heard, all that's stopping
them from being included with the standard distribution are the lack of
test and doc patches. You're welcome to work on them. Welcome to the
world of open source.
Noel
The RCVS part on source forge seems to be dead.
Paul Sander wrote:
> If your question really is: "Is anyone modifying CVS to support locking?"
> Then I believe the answer is "yes".
Who? And where may I get it?
>
> If your question really is: "Is anyone making locking a mainstream feature
> of CVS?" Then I believe the answer is "no".
sha
No link to any files produces anything. One cannot download a patch that is not
there.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The patches are there for anyone to use. Last I heard, all that's stopping
> them from being included with the standard distribution are the lack of
> test and doc patches. You're
>> If your question really is: "Is anyone making locking a mainstream
feature
>> of CVS?" Then I believe the answer is "no".
>
>shame
I think getting real reserved locks into CVS is impossible without
chainging CVS so much as to make it not CVS anymore. Of course, you're
welcome to try.
Noe
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 02:17:41 (GMT), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
> Paul Sander wrote:
>
> > If your question really is: "Is anyone making locking a mainstream feature
> > of CVS?" Then I believe the answer is
There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev release
of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only privately
in their own shops. Maybe they don't advertise them for fear of being blasted
by Greg.
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Sande
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/10/2001 at 23:03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
I understand it, there aren't any.
---
Wo? Ich kann nicht es gefunden.
Paul Sander wrote:
> There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev release
> of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only privately
> in their own shops. Maybe they don't advertise them for fear of being blasted
> b
"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. With
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
Ich funde es bei
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=422733&group_id=4680&atid=304680
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Wo? Ich kann nicht es gefunden.
>Paul Sander wrote:
>> There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev release
>> of CVS
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 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
>
Netscape tries and tries, but nothing is ever returned by this link.
Paul Sander wrote:
Ich funde es bei http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=422733&group_id=4680&atid=304680
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Wo? Ich kann nicht es gefunden.
>Paul Sander wrote:
>> Th
It sounds like the software your group is maintaining needs factoring to
decrease the likelihood that several developers are modifying the same
method. It also sounds like your group can use some communication.
Noel
"Greg A. Woods" wrote:
> Read Berliner's whole paper. Understand what it mea
--- Bryon Lape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> > 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 res
If you've really made up your mind then don't use CVS. But think about
this first: Why are you the only group I know who has tried parallel
development and didn't like it?
Noel
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/10/2001 at 23:03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Read Berliner's whole
>> Conflicts are extremely easy to produce and may not be easily resolved.
>
>The issue it seems you are having is that on a regular basis, two or more
>developers making large abouts of unrelated changes to same sections of
code.
>This problem cannot be solved by locking checkouts, or by any ch
You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so many conflicts
while so many other groups (thousands?) are not.
Noel
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> CVS doesn't require hand merging. When you perform a cvs update
> operation, then new changes in the repository are automatically
> incorporated
I was able to use Netscape get to the patches. Exactly what are you doing?
Noel
Netscape tries and tries, but nothing is ever returned by this link.
Paul Sander wrote:
Ich funde es bei
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=422733&group_id=4680&atid=304680
Your reply, as written, contradicts itself.
___
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Conflicts are easy to produce *when you have multiple developers working on
the same segments of code*.
If you are doing a lot of that without any coordination between the
developers, you are going to have a lot of problems. Period.
___
Info-cvs mai
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryon Lape [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> 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 count
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 00:06:34 (-0400), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
> *** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
>
> On 11/10/2001 at 23:03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >Read Berliner's whole paper.
[ 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
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 11:22:37 (GMT), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
> Conflicts are extremely easy to produce and may not be easily resolved.
Hmmm. and how is this different from any other change control
process? In non-parallel
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
>
> What do you mean by "method locking"? Locking individual parts
> of a file? It wouldn't do you any good.
Well, not with CVS anywa
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Greg A. Woods
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 9:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: CVS-II Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: CVS - setup reserved checkout
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 00:06:34 (-0400), Bryon Lape wrote: ]
>
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:51:54 (-0700), Gianni Mariani wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
> There is a case where Greg would agree with you and that's in the case of
> binary files or files that can't be merged automagically - like jpegs or
&
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>Even locking without lock contention won't solve all conflict
>scenarios. Commit wars are possible with any change control process.
Even if you lock an entire repository, you can still get conflicts;
conflicts outside of the system.
Suppose
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bryon Lape wrote:
>Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
>> 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 re
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
>
> [ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley,
> Dav
I got there by going to http://sourceforge.net/ and typing "rcvs" in the
search field. That produced a table of about a dozen patches, one of
which had a suitable one-description. I clicked on that, then on the
"download" button.
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Netscape tries and t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so many conflicts
>while so many other groups (thousands?) are not.
Because there is no group, and there are no conflicts. This is just
another Chicken Little yelling that the sky
One would hope that one's shop is not using the same branch for both
maintenance and new features. That kind of thing is best done on
separate branches (where the two schedules don't interfere with each
other). The bug fix is later merged into the new development when
it's appropriate to do so.
>--- 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
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>3 developers (A,B,C) need to fix file X.
>A is making some major changes, adding lots of new functionality.
>B and C need to make a minor tweak to the file.
>In a CVS model:
>B anc C can be done and outa there in minutes and essentially forget about
>
TED]
>[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote: ]
>> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "method locking"? Locking individual parts
>> of a file? It wouldn't do you any good.
>W
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
>
> One would hope that one's shop is not u
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Sander wrote:
>Under those conditions, almost any version control tool provides the
>necessary merge tool.
Your inexperience is showing. There are version control tools in *broad*
use that have extremely support for branching and merging.
Exhibit A: Visual Sou
[ On Friday, October 12, 2001 at 15:45:15 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>
> The last job I had not involving the use of CVS was with SCCS,
> and we didn't have branches. This did make shipping bug-fixed
> stuff to customers int
Wrong.
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so many conflicts
> >while so many other groups (thousands?) are not.
>
> Because there is no group, and there are no conflicts. This is just
> a
I simply clicked on the link you supplied. I even copied it to IE
just to make sure Nutscraper wasn't having a problem.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was able to use Netscape get to the patches.
Exactly what are you doing?
Noel
Netscape tries and tries, but nothing is ever returned by this link.
P
Because there is no group, and there are no conflicts. This is just
another Chicken Little yelling that the sky is falling. Actually
a step beneath Chicken Little, because something actually did fall on
Chicken Little's head, it wasn't just pure imagination. :)
Yes, I was giving him the benefi
>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 automati
2, 2001 at 09:35:58 (-0500), Thornley, David wrote:
]
>> Subject: RE: CVS - setup reserved checkout
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "method locking"? Locking individual parts
>> of a file? It wouldn't do you any good.
>Well, not with CVS anyway! :-)
OK, then exactly what are you expecting from the link? Maybe SourceForge
was down when you tried it? Have you tried it again? Have you tried
following the step-by-step instructions I sent out?
Noel
I simply clicked on the link you supplied. I even copied it to IE just to
make sure Nutscrape
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryon Lape [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Wrong.
>
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >You need to ask yourself why your group is experiencing so
> many conflicts
> > >while so many other grou
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Sander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's Noel Yap's patches on SourceForge, which apply to a down-rev
release
> of CVS. I believe that others have implemented it as well, but only
privately
> in their own shops. Maybe they don't advertise them for fear of b
65 matches
Mail list logo
