Community
Participate
Working Groups
Two developers check out a project at the same time. The first developer edits a file and commits changes in the morning. The second developer edits the same file and commits the changes in the afternoon. The second developer will have to merge his changes. There is no notification that there are updates on the server that are needed before editing the file. Synchronizing the files before editing avoids the problem most of the time.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35997 ***
Mike, Thanks for the information on Bug 35997. We had noticed this error also. However, it is slightly different from bug 83758. In this case, the edits are sequential. The first developer has completed his edits before the second developer starts editing the file. There is a need to merge because the second editor was not notified the file had changed in CVS before the edit was started. In the case of 35997, the edits are parallel.
In that case, the only notification you get is a commit failure ("up-to-date check failed). This is the way CVS works.
You are correct. CVS should require the merge if the files are out of synch with CVS when they are committed. No problem there. At the START of the edit, the files should be synchronized. This can be done manually. But, I can't think of a case where you would want to start and edit with dirty files. The edit action should verify that you have the latest updates from CVS and warn you if you don't. Agree?
The problem is that, as far as I know, CVS itself does not provide this so it would require custom handling on the client. This would required is a second connection when editing EVERY file even though, in most cases, it may not be needed. Seems like a high price to pay for me.
To bad the CVS Edit command does not return more information such as version or timestamp for performance. Agreed. The file should not be checked if the file was just retrieved or if it has changed locally. The edit is not available if the file has changed. The check should always be done if the file is old. The client knows when the file was retrieved. How long do you wait before you check the file? The answer depends on how hard it is to merge and how often you have collisions. Merging is not an option when users edit the source files with a WYSIWYG and don't understand the artifact. When merging the file is NOT an option, users need an automatic check of the file. This is not critical because users can manually get the latest changes before editing. We could change this bug to an enhancement.
What would be the benefit of keeping this bug open as an enhancement? If you are planning or working on it yourself, then I would suggest that you do so and reopen the bug report with the patch attached when you are done. If you are hoping that someone else will see the bug report and decide to work on it, then I am afraid that the chances of that are very slim. There are already close to 1000 bug reports against Team/CVS! If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and reoped it as an enhancement and we'll add it to the pile.
Sounds like you need some help. I am sure there are more serious bugs that we have not encoutered yet. I am opening this as an enhancement. Hopefully, someone will get a change to work on it. It is not a high priority for us right now.
A feature was added to perform an update before an Edit. You will need to enable this on the Watch/Edit preference page.
