> Branko =?iso-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <email@example.com> writes:
> I'm beginning to think it should be possible to get most of the
> effects of reserved chekouts with appropriate access privileges,
> and maybe a "cvs edit" equivalent combined with a bit of
> server-side scripting.
> I still think, however, that we need to at least provide the
> hooks to make it possible.
> (But not like "cvs admin -l", which is a poor substitute. Whether
> checkouts should be reserved or not is part of project policy, and
> therefore a property of the repository/object/branch/whatnot.)
> I know I'm pushing things a bit here, but from what I see people
> are often uneasy about unreserved checkouts. Having support for them
> would make SVN acceptable to more people. In fact, they're on the
> wish list of many people that use CVS in the company where I work,
> and would be a major argument for them in favour of switching to SVN.
Even though I am a huge fan of unreserved checkouts, I recently had
the opportunity to teach CVS to a group of contractors who had only
used VSS. When I explained the concept of copy-modify-merge, several
of them were absolutely horrified at the concept. They really wanted
the safety of locking/unlocking different bits of the repository,
which is what they were accustomed to.
And along the lines of 'version control system should not dictate
project policy', I would agree that it should be there. Just because I
despise a feature (and I do despise this one for a myriad of reasons),
doesn't mean that we should dump it.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:12 2006