Re: File Locking with CVS

[Noel Yap]

--- "Gilroy, Michael -AES" <address@hidden>
wrote:
> My manager won't let me use CVS with concurrent
> versions of files.  I need
> to have the file locked when I edit the file (cvs
> edit) so that no one else
> can do a 'cvs edit' until I either do a 'cvs unedit'
> or a 'cvs commit'.
> This would be similar to the way SCCS and RCS work. 
> However, I also need
> some of the advanced features that only CVS can
> provide.  I have looked at
> the perl script that is available, however, it looks
> like it will allow
> multiple users to edit a file but only one person
> can do a commit.  My users
> didn't like that idea.  We only want someone to be
> allowed to do a 'cvs
> edit' if the file is not being edited by anyone
> else.  Please help . . .

You might want to look the patches available on
SourceForge under project RenegadeCVS that'll add the
"-c" option to both "cvs edit" and "cvs commit".

NOTE, however, that this gives you advisory locking
(anyone can override the "cvs edit -c" (typically,
"edit -c" would be in everyone's ~/.cvsrc file) with
"cvs edit -f").

The real question is why your boss doesn't want
concurrent checkouts.  If you look at the last few
years of development within version control tools,
you'll see that many of them are adding this feature
(ie the market is deciding that concurrent checkouts
are good).  If your boss doesn't buy this argument,
perhaps he may buy the argument that all concurrent
checkouts are are virtual branches.  If he doesn't
like branches, I would suggest you find another job
since I see no way to control releases and fixes
without branching.

Noel



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com