Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!hwcs!zen!vic
From: vic@zen.co.uk (Victor Gavin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Bugs in RCS ??
Message-ID: <2001@zen.co.uk>
Date: 25 Oct 89 16:26:52 GMT
Organization: Zengrange Limited, Leeds, England
Lines: 106


> In reply to my article, Mark Runyan (runyan@hpir.hp.com) wrote
>> In a previous article I wrote

>>1) If you have a central RCS directory somewhere, which has many links
>>to it, and you check a file out as locked in one of the directories
>>with a link, you can also check it out as locked in a totally
>>different directory, as long as there isn't a copy of the file in the
>>second directory.
>>
>>ie The locking doesn't work, as it is dependent upon having a
>>writeable copy of the file in the current directory.
>
>I'm confused about this.  If you check a revision out as "locked",
>the lock is stored in the RCS file (The ",v" file).  The writeableness
>of the working file isn't what sets the lock.

But it does inhibit creation of new locked/writeable files.

An example is always useful:

	(2)vic: mkdir RCS
	(2)vic: touch abc
	(2)vic: /usr/bin/ci -l abc
	RCS/abc,v  <--  abc
	initial revision: 1.1
	enter description, terminated with ^D or '.':
	NOTE: This is NOT the log message!
	>> 
	done
	(2)vic: ls -al abc
	-rw-------   1 vic      software       0 Oct 25 15:42 abc
	(2)vic: rm abc
	(2)vic: grep lock RCS/abc,v
	locks    vic:1.1; strict;

[Note: The file is marked as locked within the RCS `,v' file]

	(2)vic: /usr/bin/co -l abc
	RCS/abc,v  -->  abc
	revision 1.1 (locked)
	done

[but still allows us to check it out again with a lock.]

	(2)vic: /usr/bin/co -l abc
	RCS/abc,v  -->  abc
	revision 1.1 (locked)
	writable abc exists; overwrite? [ny](n): n
	co warning: checkout aborted.

[and only if there is a writeable version in the current directory,
 does it complain.]

So what I hope I've proved is that the locking mechanism doesn't
actually pay any attention to the file status within the RCS file.


>>2) If you have a file checked out as locked, but which hasn't been
>>modified, when you check it in it will ask
>>
>>	File blip is unchanged with respect to revision 1.1
>>	checkin anyway? [ny](n): 
>>
>>and if you answer `n', the source file will get *deleted*. Worse still
>>the lock will still be set so you cannot check out anymore locked
>>versions.
>
>But you can check out the version you already have locked by using
>the "-r" option.  I'm not sure why the file is deleted or whether
>that is the right thing to do or not, but if it is exactly the
>same as the revision you already have locked, then you can recover
>by checking out the version you have locked by using the "-r" option.


Since I said ``no I don't want to check this file in'' I expect the
program to behave as if I never asked it to do anything. If I said to
you: ``don't check in any files which haven't changed'', you wouldn't
interpret that as meaning ``delete all those that haven't changed'',
would you ?


>If you wish to clear a lock, you can use the "rcs -u" command to
>remove a lock that you currently have.

You'd prefer it if I make up for the deficiencies in a piece of
software by doing the work myself?

If there is a problem, it should be fixed.

>>As an aside, maybe someone from HP would like to comment on why some
>>of the products they ship are much older versions of those available
>>from other manufacturers (in this case, RCS from HP is dated May 1983,
>>and there are certainly much newer versions available).
>
>Well, just as an attempt to spread the rumor further, it is because
>we haven't obtained a copy of the new stuff that we can resell as
>part of product...   I think the problem is that later versions of
>RCS are under GNU's copyleft and HP lawyers are still completely
>sure about what that means if we want to include RCS with HP-UX.

This sounds reasonable. Might I suggest that for situations like this
HP supply the product (inc. src for GNU stuff) on a seperately contrib
tape that is available to anyone for a nominal fee...remember the GNU
licence doesn't forbid you from charging a reasonable sum, all they
stop you doing is keeping the source to yourself.