[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [info-cvs] Re: cvs vs. perforce

From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: [info-cvs] Re: cvs vs. perforce
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:07:37 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Eivind Eklund wrote:

> Things Perforce are better at than CVS:
>       - Maintaining metadata.  Perforce handles more kinds of metadata than
>         CVS; for instance, a commit is a single unit, and is not spread
>         across different files.

The information is all there, just not organized for easy retrieval.
Karl Fogel's program shoes that it's possible to parse the
output of cvs log and match together the revisions that make up each
commit. Arguably, reconstructing the information this way is much
slower.  But on the other hand, this is historic information that does
not change.  Once you have retrieved the information, you can retain
it somewhere in a more convenient form.

>         I also believes it actually handles
>         directories, instead of regarding them as a sort of nuisance and
>         delegating them to second class citizen status.

But of course this can be done with a small layer of software over CVS.

Meta-CVS: solid version control tool with directory structure versioning.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]