Still no ability to Deny Exclusive checkouts?

[ThomasC]

It has been a couple of years since I posted this:
http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic ... &sk=t&sd=a

And I still cannot deny exclusive checkouts. I really do not understand the resistance to this feature. You allow for requiring exclusive checkouts on the server which ignores the client setting. You should be able to deny exclusive checkouts which quietly ignores the client setting. It is simply too easy for a developer to change their settings to request exclusive checkouts. Even if I can only deny exclusive checkouts on mergeable file types, it would make a HUGE difference. Seriously, why the resistance to this feature? This is fundamentally a control issue just like requiring exclusive checkouts.

[GregM]

I'm sure we all know this, but just like with any other project, you can't do everything everyone wants in any given release. I think I can count on one hand the number of times in the last 12 years that we've had anyone's work disrupted by an accidental exclusive checkout, and it can always be undone using the admin tool, so this one would not be a high priority for me. There are plenty of other things that I would give higher priority, such as rolling back an entire changeset, shelving, tracking merges to make it easier to maintain branches, working with the latest IDE, OS, and SQL server versions, etc. Just because it hasn't been implemented doesn't mean that there is resistance to the feature, just that it hasn't made it to the top of the list of features yet.

[ThomasC]

In the past 12 years, have most of your developers been ex-SourceSafe users in remote locations with egos the size of football fields? If I were working with ex-CVS developers who were transitioning to Vault, I can see how such a feature would be unnecessary.

The difference between this feature and the others you mentioned is that I would think this one would be comparatively easy to implement. Sure, I can nuke a developer's changes by undoing the checkout via the admin tool. Politically that is simply not viable. However, if developers can't checkout mergable files exclusively then there is no argument.

Let me put it this way, why allow developers to even request exclusive checkouts on mergeable files? Why is that not entirely controlled at the server? How did that feature make it to the top of the list but the converse of the feature not make it?

[GregM]

In the past 12 years, have most of your developers been ex-SourceSafe users in remote locations with egos the size of football fields?

Yes, as a matter of fact. However, I don't see how that's relevant, unless you're talking about people intentionally checking things out exclusively, in which case denying them that ability gets into the political issues.

The difference between this feature and the others you mentioned is that I would think this one would be comparatively easy to implement.

One would think, but it still takes time away from other features.

Sure, I can nuke a developer's changes

It doesn't nuke the developer's changes. It just marks the file as not checked out. It then becomes renegade on their machine. They can then check it out again later and handle the merge.

Let me put it this way, why allow developers to even request exclusive checkouts on mergeable files?

My guess: because SourceSafe allowed exclusive checkouts, and Vault was originally developed as a replacement for SourceSafe.

How did that feature make it to the top of the list but the converse of the feature not make it?

My guess: because SourceSafe didn't have that feature.

[ThomasC]

Look, I fully understand the whole idea of prioritizing features. However, if we are talking about SourceSafe users, they never had the ability to do anything other than exclusive checkouts. By allowing the client to not checkin exclusively, you are by definition adding a new feature. SourceGear then extended that feature by allowing the source admin to force exclusive checkouts. Clearly they must have felt that source admins would want to force exclusive checkouts. What I do not understand is why they wouldn't think the reverse would also be true. Both are flip sides of the same coin: forcing a certain development style. Right now, your only choices are to force one particular type of development style or none at all.

[GregM]

However, if we are talking about SourceSafe users, they never had the ability to do anything other than exclusive checkouts.

That is incorrect. The first option on the first page of the SourceSafe admin tool options dialog is "Allow multiple checkouts". The Vault setting exactly matches this, with the addition of not allowing multiple checkouts on non-mergable files.

[Beth]

Thanks for your input GregM.

ThomasC: We do try to put in features that will make as many customers as possible happy and keep Vault stable. Sometimes that conflicts with what other users want or have as a priority. We don't have anything against this particular feature. I will let the developers know of your concern about this feature and reasoning behind wanting it.

F: 14491

[ThomasC]

However, if we are talking about SourceSafe users, they never had the ability to do anything other than exclusive checkouts.

That is incorrect. The first option on the first page of the SourceSafe admin tool options dialog is "Allow multiple checkouts". The Vault setting exactly matches this, with the addition of not allowing multiple checkouts on non-mergable files.

That is only true on the current version of SourceSafe. All versions of SourceSafe prior to the current version did not allow multiple checkouts.

[ThomasC]

Thanks for your input GregM.

ThomasC: We do try to put in features that will make as many customers as possible happy and keep Vault stable. Sometimes that conflicts with what other users want or have as a priority. We don't have anything against this particular feature. I will let the developers know of your concern about this feature and reasoning behind wanting it.

Thanks Beth. As I said, I understand prioritization, I'm just a little shocked that more people have not complained about this. Just as mandating exclusive checkouts on at the server allows the admin to force a certain development style, so would preventing exclusive checkouts on mergeable files. Fundamentally, we are talking about the difference between letting your developers pick their development style or letting the development admin do it.

[Beth]

Understood. Thanks for your feedback. I've logged it for the developers.