On Tuesday, August 6, 2002, at 02:00 AM, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
> Quoting Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net>:
>
>> I meant that Subversion itself should provide the communication
>> mechanism, because it can do a much better job than email, phones, and
>> smoke puffs. And if it does provide that mechanism, it has solved the
>> same problems that locking solves, but without getting in people's way
>> as much as locking.
>>
>> By "better", I mean specificially that Subversion can store and
>> deliver messages about who wants to exclusively work on what, and
>> deliver them in a timely fashion, because everyone's already using the
>> revision control system to get information about the files. They're
>> not using their mailreaders or telephones to update their files --
>> that's why it's a pain to use those channels to obtain locking
>> information.
>
> At the risk of being boring, I'll (again) describe how ClearCase does
> this: It
> asks for a commit log message at _checkout_ time, i.e., when you lock a
> file or
> directory. That message is visible to other users, and serves as the
> template
> for the "real" log message at commit time.
Hmm. Did any one see the 'svn annotate' proposal I posted on Saturday? I
got it back through the list, but it seems to have been met with
thunderous silence. It addresses these issues directly.
Colin Putney
Whistler.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 6 19:25:04 2002