Re: CVS files merging procedure

[Jim Hyslop]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Russ Sherk wrote:
> How does access control provide support for properly handling a patching
> procedure?  The OP is trying to use CVS to do something it was not intended
> to do.  There will still be problems with concurrent development on the same
> files.  If you are implying that the process should be changed to force all
> developers to create and commit their changes to a 'devel branch' and using
> cvs_acls to prevent accidental commits to HEAD then I agree.

That is what I was suggesting, yes.

> It still
> implies that the OP needs to look at their process and make some changes.
No arguments there ;-)

> Abhay:  another method that would probably help if you don't want to change
> your overall process is to have developers submit patches to the cvs admin.
> The admin can then apply the patches and resolve conflicts without fear of
> accidentally overwriting changes.

They'll still have to change their approach somewhat. All their
checkouts are currently done based on date. The administrator must be
very confident and competent with CVS, otherwise they could issue the
wrong sequence of commands and end up in the same situation they're in
now. OTOH, using branches is much less prone to such problems.

I notice that this thread has gone on for five days now, with no
response from Abhay on any of the questions that were raised. Until and
unless Abhay provides any further info, I think we need to let this
thread slide.

- --
Jim Hyslop
Dreampossible: Better software. Simply.     http://www.dreampossible.ca
                 Consulting * Mentoring * Training in
    C/C++ * OOD * SW Development & Practices * Version Management
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDnwo7LdDyDwyJw+MRAoxOAKCNLTSixZl6Y/qJfcMh3jkmpwAqoACfTzy/
eueXRM8FWtx4U/BXpabm+M0=
=Rlzi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----