[cvsnt] Re: Why edit -x?

[Glen Starrett]

Jerzy Kaczorowski wrote:
> On a side note, it appears from your comments that the decision to add the
> exclusive edits is driven by the CVSNT going "commercial". It's very sad to
> see that going the wrong way so soon :(

My 0.02:  As long as it doesn't interfere with the traditional CVSNT 
operation, I'm not at all opposed to it.  Before I started using CVSNT, 
when I didn't understand concurrent methods and ignored files and 
merging etc. etc., the thought of a conflict had me concerned.  I read 
up on the matter (including a long-ish explanation, almost a sermon, on 
the promise of concurrent development) and I came around.  However, not 
everyone will research before making a decision.

It seems that Tony is trying to satisfy putting a check in the column of 
CVSNT for "supports exclusive edits" and gets rid of the footnote that 
there are lots of workarounds (and to the uneducated future CVS admin / 
manager, danger).  It certainly is better than "well, yes, it sort-of 
supports that".

I don't know if there's any reason why cvsrc with edit -c and commit -c 
would work as Jerzy noted, but I assume there is some important 
distinction (I don't use either yet, but may soon start with some files).

Regards,

-- 
Glen Starrett