Re: reserved lock and other patches

[Derek R. Price]

Noel L Yap wrote:

> OK, the strategy I've picked is to submit three separate patches:
> 1. "multiple_edits" which will allow multiple edits per user per file.
> 2. "reservations" which will allow users to have "reserved" locks on files.
> 3. "multiple_edits+reservations" which will have both of the above (minus 
> merge
> conflicts, of course).
>
> If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd like to hear it.

Sorry for the delay in responding.  I was out of the office for a week.  Oh,
notice the address change too - I work for ColabNet now instead of OpenAvenue, 
but
I'm still doing much the same work.

No better suggestion - that sounds pretty good, but you did leave me with a
question.

Are these patched backwards/forwards compatible?  i.e. what happens when the
client and server are out of synch on any of these patches?

ME = multiple_edits, R = reservations, MER = multiple_edits+reservations, ! = 
not
present (pre-patch):

    Client        Server        Result
    ----------    ----------    ----------
    ME            !ME           ???
    !ME           ME            ???
    R             !R            ???
    !R            R             ???
    MER           !MER          ???
    !MER          MER           ???

Derek

--
Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden     OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
--
Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up!