[cvsnt] Re: Why edit -x?

[Alexandre Augusto Drummond Barroso]

Maybe it's just a matter of creating a server option to explicity disable -x option the same way we can enforce its use by editing cvsrc.

Regards,

Alexandre

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org 
> [mailto:cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org]On Behalf
> Of Jerzy Kaczorowski
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 7:37 PM
> To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org
> Subject: Re: [cvsnt] Re: Why edit -x?
> 
> 
> Tony,
> 
> Exclusive locks are like cancer - they spread and reach the 
> point of no
> return very quickly because they penalise anybody trying to work in a
> concurent way.
> 
> After not being able to complete their work because of 
> somebody's locks
> people learn to reserve the files they want to work with (and 
> a couple extra
> just in case they need them later). There is no easy way out 
> of that vicious
> circle. It just becomes a rutine and reduces version control 
> system to a
> mere backup system.
> 
> In the case of exclusive edit there is a simple remedy to the above
> scenario: allow to override the lock. It doesn't have to be 
> simple but it
> should not involve external intervention (admin override is 
> not an option,
> most admins doesn't want to touch things like that).
> 
> It would not be the first time - the old admin locks (admin 
> -l) allowed
> anybody to unlock the file by giving revision explicitly 
> (admin -urev).
> Majority of users, and most of those using locks, didn't 
> realize that and
> locked themself happily to death, yet it allowed a smart 
> person to unlock
> the files and complete their job in concurent fashion shall 
> the need arise.
> 
> Perhaps a similiar approach can be applied to a new option?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Jerzy