Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Subversion considered obsoleteSubversion considered obsoletePosted Apr 8, 2010 20:56 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: Subversion considered obsolete by tialaramex Parent article: A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap
In centralized systems (especially those that don't handle merges decently) this is really the only way to work, true. (RCS works this way, for example). But with decentralized systems with reasonable branching and merging this isn't required. And locking a file doesn't really make sense in a decentralized system (there is no single "file" to lock!), so it is left out of the tool. If the workflow requires some sort of "don't touch some file(s) for a while" synchronization, it has to be handled outside. I believe this requirement's importance is way overblown. How many projects do you work on, where it is really a requirement (not an artifact of shortcommings in integrating changes by the tool)?
(Log in to post comments)
Subversion considered obsolete Posted Apr 8, 2010 21:56 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Subversion's locking is purely a workflow management tool: it *is* simply a way to say "don't touch this file for a while".
Being a distributed VCS doesn't make this workflow management tool any less necessary. And it's convenient to have it integrated with the VCS so that "status" shows the status, and "commit" checks and releases the locks, and so on.
You might want to read this so you can know what you're talking about:
I wish I didn't have to keep defending subversion: git is really nice. But come on people, just be honest about what it can't do, and stop claiming those things are unnecessary!
Subversion considered obsolete Posted Apr 9, 2010 16:07 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] As I said, the workflow might require it. But in a decentralized environment there simply can't be any "common rallying point" for all developers handled by the DVCS, so the tool itself can't help you here. Not by a design flaw, but by fundamental reasons: The "locking" idea only makes sense if there is one master copy shared by all.
|
|||||||||||||