Yes definitely need locking. It is a standard part of doing a checkout for many organisations.

It's almost silly that we need to vote on this. It's a huge missing part of the application that has made our company decide to hold off on this tool until it has been added.

It's almost silly that we need to vote on this. It's a huge missing part of the application that has made our company decide to hold off on this tool until it has been added.

Locking feature will make it more useful. we want the locking feature.

I like @Andrew Hartley's suggestion of a manual flag. Having developers working in two locations a thousand miles apart means you can't exactly call over the cube for a quick "anyone changing XXX?" Manual "mark this as being worked on", with a userid of course, would be very helpful shy of exclusive checkouts everywhere.

Happy to compromise on a manual flag option as I'm sure an auto exclusive checkout will require a completely different mechanism to identify changes. We need to be able to flag an object as being edited so that other devs can see and at least have a conversation about whether to merge changes or wait for one change to be checked in before starting the next. We would use this for about 5% of our changes, but they are the time consuming complex headache-generating changes that we don't want to be made even more complicated by sifting through a merge process - please...

yes I would like exclusive checkout to prevent others from overwriting my code in shared environment.

We also would like this feature.

In response to David's question, I think it is important to support both the ability to lock an object as well as allow multiple people to work on the same object. In the second scenario, I think it is important to alert them that something they are working in is checked out by another developer; in a fashion for than just an indicator on the object. They should have to perform a check out and get notified that "<user> also has <object> checked out."

Locking feature would be very much useful

Yes, we want a locking feature.

Can I ask why this feature is important for you? The modern trend for source control is not to use exclusive locking.

We are delaying the purchase of this product to my whole team because of this missing feature.

This will be a great feature and a deal clincher with management to purchase this product. Trying to resolve conflicts and merge changes of parallel development has wasted too much time in the past and it would be far nicer, safer and simpler if changes were done exclusively. If that's not possible, then even a notification that someone else has made changes that haven't been committed yet would be a good start.

I agree; we need this lock functionality, or we won't really be able to use the integration. We rely on this to avoid conflicts

We are considering using SVN-Lock to prevent multiple people from editing one object in a shared database environment.

I also vote fore Check-In/Check-Out option.

@Seth - which is more important, preventing another user from modifying an object you're working on, or letting them know that you're working on it, so they work on it at their own risk?

I too vote for this. Being able to lock an object you are working on so that other developers know that you are working on it is a must. We still use the product and like it a lot, but this would be a great feature to have.

@Craig - are you all sharing a database, or do all developers have their own? What problems would you anticipate without this feature?