Oops. Somebody made me turn off reply-to munging, so this didn't go to the list...
> > > I think it's safe to assume that if the user checks out a copy into a
> > > working tree, they can modify it. That means that any write protection
> > > is convenience rather than security.
> >
> > Yep -- read-only indicates that the file is not checked out, writable ==
> > checked out. This makes sense IMHO, and is familiar to most CM system
> > users I think.
>
> I think I disagree.
>
> If the file is in the user's working directory tree, it's checked out. CVS
> got this right, and all of the locking-oriented tools get it wrong.
Advisory
> locks are needed, but on configurations, not on files.
>
> The reason for read-only is merely to give the user a chance not to modify
> the file without thinking about it.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
> shap
>