No one is arguing it's not useful, only that there are ways to work
around the situation until the feature is implemented - which it is in
the process right now.
There's no point in continuing this discussion. It's been hashed out a
100 times by now.
Peter Yamamoto wrote:
> Perhaps you shouldn't rush to characterizing people as impolite...
>
> The practical reason for the locks is that for files that cannot be
> merged it can help avoid wasted work...
>
> A person who is about to work on a file that cannot be merged (eg binary
> file of some sort such as may art file formats), can exclusively lock it
> before working on it. When this is part of the workflow, it means that
> people won't waste time working on a file only one of them will be able
> to commit.
>
> Yes, one could argue that there are layers on top of version control
> that should probably be tracking this dependency so that two people
> don't end up working on tasks involving the same un-mergeable file at
> the same time; how many shops have that level of detail task+asset
> management detail [and let's include cost, eg leave AlienBrain out of
> the discussion]?
>
> The point is that this "feature" does serve a valid purpose, and the
> version control layer can act as a very good self-defense mechanism. The
> person who does it right and checks out exclusively before working is
> the person who justifiably can check in their work.
>
> At the very least I don't see the negative characterization you seem to
> want to put on people holding views/workflow issues different than your
> own.
>
> As far as I know, subversion wasn't meant to satisfy the palate of only
> one type of user/data.
>
> Peter
--
Brian Mathis
http://directedge.com/b/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 16 22:01:26 2004