Re: Locking support

[Brian Clark]

> CVS was explicitly designed to effectively *force* developers into a
> concurrent editing scenario.  Fight that design at your peril.
> 
> If you do not want to be forced into using a versioning system that only
> really supports concurrent editing then you do not want CVS, no matter
> how free or stable or otherwhise suitable it is for your project.
> 
> CVS is not the only kid on the block.  Indeed if concurrent edits are
> antithetical to your group then even bare RCS or SCCS would be preferable.

PooPoo.  I've used CVS for years and have avoided that "insecure"
feeling some of us get from not knowing if we are working on a file
that someone else is working on.  We've wrapped cvs edit in a perl
script that determines who else is editing the file and warns (ok
informs, if that makes you feel better) you who is editing the file.

CVS has allot more to offer besides the "C" in its name:

-It's primary interface has remained command line.
-It supports directory structures (unlike rcs and sccs)
-It is free and open sourced.
-It has an extremely knowledgable user base.

I don't know of another version control system that meets all of these
criteria even close to as well.

-BC