On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 10:35:39AM +1000 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] thought: > kath wrote: > > > I was thinking CVS... but not keeping changes local is important (so noone > > is holding out on something important on accident). > > > > Would CVS be able to do this? I always thought CVS was more like a > > different kind of FTP (How I've come to understand it is that you have > > people that can update the source and others that can just view and download > > it. Am I missing something?) > > In open projects like most Sourceforge stuff, change access does > get restricted to keep L33t H4x0r5 from uploading nasty-things. > > In closed projects (internal to companies and such), it's usually > the default case: anyone who has access to the tree has both read > and write access. > > > Each person would have to make sure they 'cvs commit' their changes > when they've done changing things, and that they 'cvs add' any new > files or directories they make. But so long as they do that, the > CVS tree will remain up-to-date with the latest info. As a matter of interest, how does CVS cope when: 1. I checkout source and start editing. 2. You checkout the same source and start editing. 3. You finish editing and checkin your version. 4. I finish editing and checkin my version. And we've both modified the same bits of the same files. ? Conor -- Conor Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Domestic Sysadmin :-) --------------------- Faenor.cod.ie 10:56am up 22 days, 11:13, 0 users, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.05 Hobbiton.cod.ie 11:05am up 22 days, 11:23, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.08, 0.05 _______________________________________________ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
