On Nov 8, 2003, at 11:18 AM, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2003, at 5:24 PM, Chris Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2003, at 12:21 PM, Kevin Meinert wrote:
>>>
>>>> One advantage (only one I can see) is that VSS manages binary files
>>>> well,
>>>> i.e. it has exclusive locking. For this reason I would choose it
>>>> over CVS
>>>> or subversion at this point, though SVN will have it after 1.0.
>>>
>>> I think Perforce would be a much better choice than VSS. Perforce
>>> operates almost exclusively on exclusive locking, although you can
>>> graft CVS-style merges onto it with external tools. Perforce may be
>>> expensive, though.
>>
>> Um, that's not true. Well, the expensive part is true, but the
>> 'almost
>> exclusively on exclusive locking' isn't. While perforce will inform
>> you when another user is editing a file when you run 'p4 edit',
>> nothing
>> stops you from doing so by default, and there is built in merge
>> support
>> that is quite good. It does have an exclusive locking mode, but in my
>> experience using it is not the common case (except for binary files).
>
> FYI.
>
> I was told by a Perforce user that it is possible to exclude others
> from commiting while you have a file locked. Yes, they can edit, but
> Perforce blocks their commits until you command and unlock the file
> making it the problem of other users to handle merging.
FWIW, Garrett is correct, mea culpa. It is possible to exclusively lock
something in Perforce, but "p4 edit" does not do it. Confusing user
interface? Yes, have some...
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 9 15:10:11 2003