Re: CVS Transaction

[Andy Jones]

I have certainly read all the documentation in this area.

I respect that you know a great deal more about CVS than I do, and
that for all practical purposes there is probably nothing to worry
about.

Nevertheless, many other vcs felt it necessary to code transactional
locking. Which must mean it has some value...

On 08/09/05, Mark D. Baushke <address@hidden> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Andy Jones <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > There is also the theoretical issue of multiple developers committing
> > changes to the same set of multiple files at once, which does rather
> > worry me.
> 
> It should not worry you. cvs gets it correct. Read the manual on
> how cvs does locking.
> 
> > In an ideal world, one of those developers should get all his files
> > committed, and the others should be locked out.  But without
> > transactional commits, you can't guarantee that.
> 
> You are mistaken. Transactional commits are not required. All that is
> required is to do locking of the resources that will change and have
> anyone else in contention back-off and try to acquire locks again.
> 
> > Of course, the chances of this causing a problem in a genuine
> > development environment, are a completely seperate question...
> 
> I suggest that you need to go and read up on how cvs does directory
> locking to ensure that all of the files for a given commit will block
> someone else from being allowed to do a commit in the same directory at
> the same time.
> 
>        -- Mark
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
> 
> iD8DBQFDIA4lCg7APGsDnFERAhhGAKC14Dwc6wFg6Yf7W+R6fjfrvXS55ACeIx7k
> HTqhWdrYhCqYw6zsdAFIZaw=
> =umIY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>