[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Upcoming dynamic CVSADM patch - 1 workspace >1 repositories for each
Re: Upcoming dynamic CVSADM patch - 1 workspace >1 repositories for each file
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:09:12 -0500
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:43:04PM -0800, Andy Glew wrote:
> I originally posted this to the newsgroup fa.info-cvs, but it
> appears to be oneway. Pardon if this is a repost.
[It isn't. But only the (sparsely-tagged) "HTML" was readable in
my plain-text mail client; the "text" version was all run
together on one line.]
> This enhancement allows the CVSADM directory to be specified.
> In priority order, from lowest to highest:
Yes, please! This will help greatly with my current
> default "CVS"
> environment variable "CVSADM"
> --CVSADM command line argument.
That last includes .cvsrc support, I hope.
> WISH? / DESIRABLE FEATURE?
> It would be nice if cvs ci could be directed to
> check into all repositories in one command.
That's trivially shell-scriptable:
for cvsadm in CVS*; do
# Note that -d cvsroot-override is not required
cvs --CVSADM $cvsadm ci
So why bother including it in CVS proper? (N.B: both the script
and the built-in implementation require some naming convention
for cvsadm subdirectories, so that doesn't offer any reason to
choose one approach over the other.)
> WISH? / DESIRABLE FEATURE?
> It might be nice if cvs update could check out
> from all repositories and automatically merge.
> After all, the separate repositories are really
> just a differet physical implementation of branches.
If "all" == 2, perhaps. But again, isn't that also scriptable
For more than two repo's, I think this would be overwhelmingly
confusing -- though no more or less so than an (N>2)-way merge
between conventional CVS branches.
I've often enough found myself with the task of merging N
divergent versions of the same stuff (source trees, contact
lists, whatever). I've almost(?) always ended up simplifying the
problem to a series of two-way merges, by:
- picking by visual inspection one version that looks "closest"
to the desired final state, and designating that as "good"
- going through the other versions, one at a time, doing a
merge between that and the good one
I think that, unless most or all of the merges end up being
trivial, this is the only way to keep such a task manageable.
> Reserved checkouts tetatively updating a version number
> would not have the make problem.
Well, if there were reserved checkouts in the first place :-)
For all my objections to the wish list, I think the basic idea
could be really useful in some unfortunate situations -- like the
one on my current project. Andy, I could really use those
patches, if they're in any shape to distribute.
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. address@hidden
| | /
The acronym for "the powers that be" differs by only one letter
from that for "the pointy-haired boss".