Description of problem: At my company we use rcs for keeping track configuration file changes. This is true even when we are making changes to config files via our libraries that we have written. In some cases we may have multiple processes running as the same user editing desiring to edit the same config file. Since they are the same user if the second one who tries to check out the file will be able to do so, even though we really wanted rcs to return an error. Another case, which is more problematic to use is if some piece of code neglected to check the file in (which is a bug on our side) and then another program goes to check out the file and it is running as the same user rcs will allow this to happen. In both these cases rcs is not exhibiting a bug, it works as designed (locks are only between seperate users). I would like to suggest an enhancement to rcs that allows one to request on a check out that locks be obeyed even for the same user. I am attaching a patch to rcs 5.7 that gives this functionality. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.7 How reproducible: N/A Steps to Reproduce: 1. As a user run "co -l -f" to check out a file and force the check out (the force is needed for automated operations). 2. Run the same command again. Actual results: It checks it out twice, furthermore any changes made to the file after the first check out and before the second will be lost. Expected results: I expected these results (its an RFE (-;). Additional info: I am also working this through GNU help-rcs list. Will attach links to the conversation when they are available on the archive.
Created attachment 95470 [details] Adds -S to co to allow for obeying of locks for the same user. -S seemed to be available. The best nomenclature I could come up with for the feature was same user locks, as strict locks was already used. If you can think of a better naming convention feel free to change away. I have done some testing of this with and without the switch, but it certainly could stand some further testing.
This sounds like a very useful addition. If you get a response from the GNU folks please let me know (here in bugzilla) so i can update rcs to a newer GNU version when thats available. In the meantime i'll include your patch in our rpm, so should be in the next rawhide version and releases we make. Thanks, Read ya, Phil