[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CVS bashing?
Re: CVS bashing?
Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:06:22 -0400
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:27:15PM -0700, Mike Castle wrote:
> I've recently started working at a perforce shop. One thing that perforce
> does with it's merging is, instead of doing a default merge, it gives you
> Keep your changes only, keep the other set of changes only, or merge the
Not too hard to do in CVS once you know how. Granted, you have
to take those steps *before* typing "cvs update"; it doesn't stop
to ask you. (No, I'm not suggesting it should!)
> Otherwise, I've not been convinced that things like changesets where you
> pick and choose which bits and pieces get included into a particular source
> file (ala clearcase) is worth it. Just the administrative overhead would
> be obnoxious! :->
Yah, I was reading about those on the Bitkeeper site. I can see
pros and cons; I'd have to use them to know.
- they may help you maintain multiple variants, which CVS
doesn't currently address
- they seem to be a fundamental component of Bitkeeper's ability
to operate with distributed repo's, disconnected, etc.
- what you said
- for variants, wouldn't a given changeset would become less
useful over time, as the main body of the source drifted away
from its "pre" state?
> One place I would like to see improvements is the ability to automatically
> be able to track how branches were synced up together so that changes
> aren't reapplied.
Subversion plans to do this (hooray!)
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. address@hidden
| | /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
- RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)
Re: CVS bashing?, Alexander Kamilewicz, 2001/04/18
Re: CVS bashing?, Paul Sander, 2001/04/11