Re: Interest in locking mechanism?

From: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@mit.edu>
Date: Jan 12, 2010, 19:11 UTC
Message-ID: <1263323292-sup-4182@ezyang>
In-Reply-To: <32541b131001121101i76ad8062p3a7f3571ad86b0ce@mail.gmail.com>

Excerpts from Avery Pennarun's message of Tue Jan 12 14:01:42 -0500 2010:

Show 6 quoted lines

> If what you want is just one shared working copy with locking, then
> what you want is RCS.  Why change what's not broken?  You're not doing
> anything distributed or even any branching, and you don't need to
> atomically commit multiple files at once (which would be very
> confusing if more than one person is changing stuff in the current
> tree), so git doesn't seem buy you anything.

I would like to respectfully disagree.  I want to use git because:

    * I use Git on a regular basis, and do not use RCS.  I constantly
      have to go digging through the manpages when I occasionally do
      stumble upon an RCS system.  Interface familiarity is nice.

    * Putting it in Git means that you can easily grow; you can decide
      "Hey, maybe we want to do branchy development" and just do it,
      rather than have to drum up the activation energy to do an
      rcsimport.

    * If code is deployed in a production context as a Git checkout,
      you can definitely have both branchy development as well as
      a shared working copy (with low contention, but contention nonetheless).

Cheers, Edward