Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
> If the client could be hacked to do it it still requires a round trip > to the server to check the edit status anyway - eg. edit -c basically > sends an 'editors' command then looks to see if there's any output.. > it's not more efficient than doing the two commands separately at all It's far more efficient for the :ext-protocol for example. > (although arguably more convenient), so the frontend might as well do > it - as some do. > > It's not normally an error to edit an out-of-date file simply because > by the time you commit it's not impossible that someone will have > added a new revision anyway - if someone wants to work around the > reserved edits they can very easily. But if everyone wants to work with reserved edits and someone forgets to call update before edit you might end up in a conflict. BTW I think edit on tagged or not up-to-date files _is_ an error - or at least it's an action that the user should be warned of. > I would question whether anyone would ever edit 'many' files and if > they were whether CVS was the best tool for them. Why? We use this feature sometimes to temporarily prevent users from modifing certain directories. > Edit doesn't know anything about branches (and actually knows nothing > of the file it's editing.. it just assumes you're doing something > sane), so there is no error on edit - you hold the edit on the file > (although you are editing a revision). But you can't edit a tagged version of the file. At least you can't commit changes to a tagged file, so consequently you shouldn't be allowed to edit it. Christian