Hans-Emil Skogh <Hans-Emil.Skogh <at> tritech.se> writes:
> The problem is that the developer will not know that it has been locked
> until he/she tries to commit. This will waste
> (your) precious resources (developer time). This won't be fixed with a
> pre-commit hook either.
Well I dont think so, because the workfolw would be that simple : when the user
wont be able to commit its modification to the branch, he'll wonder why and
either read the lock comment or ask the branch manager for instructions. Then,
he'll switch to the right branch and then commit in peace.
> To solve this problem you will have to rely on: Other
> Means of Communication! (*gasp*)
> This can for example be a mailing list, or project
> meetings.
Well, in fact, our most precious resource is time. So, mailing would be too
slow for that purpose and regular mass email will quickly bother the users.
Project meetings ... just dont think about it ;)
> And what happens if a developer accidentally commits
> to the branch? Nothing! As long as you either have made a tag or
> simply noted the revision number of the branch (and you do that
> already I hope?)
> (And you are of course free
>to create a tool/script for your non-technical project admins to enable/disable
> it for different directories.))
Yes of course, we tag ! :) But, one more time : time is precious, and a
developper will waste more time by reporting its update to another branch than
committing it directly to the right one.
> Think about the whole situation again. Locking is not the answer.
Ok, I undestand. Anyway, after reflexion, I think that the best solution will be
to tell the branch manager the best way to manage them (without locking them
the branches or the managers)). After all, that's their responsibility !
Thank you.
FD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 3 15:30:46 2006