Re: CVS file locking question

[Eric Siegerman]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:25:19PM +0200, Jens Vonderheide wrote:
> [...] I want to keep [a]
> sandbox on the notebook and share it (as a Windows share) to the pc. I will
> never work on both computers at the same time, so there should not be any
> issues with concurrent accesses.
> Or should I rather create two sandboxes and use commit/update to synchronize
> them?

Creating two sandboxes would be much better.

I don't think it's nearly as likely that your sandbox will be
corrupted due to network bugs as that such a thing would happen
to a shared repo ... but it's a lot *more* likely that it'll be
corrupted due to pilot error -- copying the out-of-date version
over top of the current one instead of vice versa, for example,
or forgetting to sync them up and finding out too late that
you've made major changes in both.

This is one of the problems CVS was invented to solve (though in
a slightly different context).  Considering how good it is at
keeping such things straight, and how poor humans are at it, why
*not* let CVS do the bookkeeping for you?

(CVS can't prevent the forgetting-to-sync problem, of course, but
it sure makes recovering easier -- with CVS, it's just a standard
merge).

--

|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
        - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)