[MAL] > I'm getting loads of lock messages during CVS checkins recently. > Is this due to overload ? (I wonder why anoncvs access causes > locking at all -- there is no write access so why should there > be file locking ?): IIRC, CVS maintains the illusion of being a multi-user system by using per-*directory* locks. That means it gives you the warm fuzzy feeling that you're being protected against (e.g.) getting an inconsistent snapshot while someone else is committing, but in fact you're not protected at all (inter-directory). It locks per-directory to ensure the integrity of its own data files, but users are subject to the luck of the draw. Note that Perl is maintained under (the commercial, alas) Perforce, which is one of the few SCMs to take multi-developer multi-directory issues seriously. So the good news is that when you see a CVS lock gripe, that means CVS is protecting itself from corruption. The bad news is that if we used a system that protected *us* against inconsistencies too, we'd probably see lock gripes even more often.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4