[adrianmonk]

> Why are people even touching files they shouldn't be touching?

I don't think it's accurate to say they shouldn't be touching the files.

It's possible to make two unrelated changes in the same binary file just as it is possible to make two unrelated changes in a source file (or other merge-friendly text file).

Just as there may be nothing wrong if one person changes the function foo() in a file and someone else changes the function bar() in that same file, there may be nothing wrong if one person opens a CAD file and makes a change to a drawing in one part and another person makes a change to a different part of the same drawing.

In that case, they could coordinate by communicating (even though their tasks are unrelated) but then they're just doing the same thing as locking the files but manually and informally (and probably inconsistently) without the benefits of automation.

Of course there are times when locking catches failures to communicate, but that doesn't mean that that's what locking is for.

[dagmx]

Sure, but I would argue it's a poor system that is setup to require serial editing to a non diffable file.

Again, I'm not saying locking is an invalid solution. It is. But to me, it's often (but not always), a crutch for a deeper issue.

That binary file should be set up to be modular if it is intended to have areas that multiple users can touch without directly affecting each other.