[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Merging in CVS
From: |
MacMunn, Robert |
Subject: |
RE: Merging in CVS |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:53:57 -0500 |
It is looking that way to me also and you can't beat the price. A friend of
mine was at the Apache conference this week and says there is a replacement
coming out for CVS.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniels, Dave F [PCS] [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:43 PM
To: MacMunn, Robert
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: RE: Merging in CVS
>From my experience, technically the way CVS performs merges is fine. The
biggest problem has been misunderstanding of how to correctly perform a
merge, and this is a problem you can have with any tool. I've had instances
where someone complained that CVS screwed up a merge, but when I dug a
little deeper, it turned out the user had made the mistake, not the tool.
There are some holes in CVS (e.g., directory versioning), but overall it's a
very easy tool to use and manage, even with a large number of users.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MacMunn, Robert [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:54 PM
> To: 'Thomas S. Urban'
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: Merging in CVS
>
>
> We have 3 CM tools within the whole comapny. CVS, Perforce,
> and Clearcase.
>
> Management wants to go with 1 tool. They feel Clearcase is
> too expensive,
> and it can be. I am a Clearcase guy, but know the cost. So,
> Perforce seems
> limited, CVS seems to be able to handle all that we need. I
> just need to
> make sure that there aren't any gotcha's.
>
> From the feedback I am getting from other CVS users is that
> CVS handles
> merges poorly. I am not here to start an arguement on which
> is the better
> CM tool. I am not closed minded to think that because I know
> Clearcase,
> that it is the best tool. I am trying to find out where we may have
> problems with release engineering and developers. The
> graphical merge tool
> Clearacse has saves a lot of time, and it is part of
> Clearcase. The cost of
> Clearcase is just too astronomical now and like I said CVS
> seems to have
> all that we need. I am just trying to figure out what we
> gain and what we
> lose.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 'Thomas S. Urban' [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:39 PM
> To: MacMunn, Robert
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
>
>
> So use Clearcase if it provides something you can't live without. I'm
> only trying to point out that logically, the operations are the same
> (the timing may be a little different), e.g:
>
> 1 You request an update of local file to newest version in
> repository
> 2 CVS will merge new version and local changes (if any)
> automatically,
> (if possible)
> 3 If automatic merge is not possible, CVS forces user to *manually*
> resolve conflicts
>
> If you can show my how clearcase behaves differently than this
> *logically*, then maybe you've got a point (and maybe I'll start using
> clearcase since it would then have the ability to read my mind).
>
> Everthing else is just interfaces and easy of use, both of which are
> qualities easy to remedy through toolsmithing, IMO.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 13:28:02 -0500, MacMunn, Robert sent
> 3.0K bytes:
> > It isn't a slick interface. In Clearcase it is the merge
> tool itself that
> > gives you the ability to deal with the conflicts easily.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 'Thomas S. Urban' [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:27 PM
> > To: MacMunn, Robert
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 13:17:12 -0500, MacMunn, Robert
> sent 1.7K bytes:
> > > Not at all. In Clearcase you have a graphical interface where the
> > conflicts
> > > can be taken care of as the merge happens. No manual
> editting of files.
> >
> > A nice tool with a graphical interface is still a manual
> tool. It may
> > be easier to use than a simple text editor (but why would you use a
> > simple text editor?), but both process are manual versus
> automatic.
> > Perhaps the time the manual work happens is significant, I
> don't know,
> > but it still happens.
> >
> > Graphical interfaces for dealing with the conflict markers
> CVS produces
> > probably exist, either with one of the many GUI clients, or
> with emacs.
> > The vim plugin I use highlights them specially. If I cared, I could
> > write easy vim functions that would take one version or the
> other for
> > each conflict. But it rarely comes up in our usage (i.e.
> including good
> > communication), so I don't care all that much about slick
> interfaces to
> > conflict resolution.
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas S. Urban [mailto:address@hidden
> > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:16 PM
> > > To: MacMunn, Robert
> > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:23:56 -0500, MacMunn, Robert
> sent 0.9K bytes:
> > > > Thanks. Looks like merges must be difficult in CVS. A
> lot of manual
> > > work.
> > >
> > > Most of the time, merges happen automatically. Manual
> intervention is
> > > only required when they can't happen automatically.
> Conflicts always
> > > take (some amount) of a manual work. Merges never do. I
> don't see how
> > > you can get around this fact in any system, short of exclusivity.
> > >
> > > Looks like you may be confused by terminology. RTFM.
> > >
> > > HTH
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kaz Kylheku [mailto:address@hidden
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:18 PM
> > > > To: MacMunn, Robert
> > > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, MacMunn, Robert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am new to CVS. I am testing out merging.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I merged 2 files I got extra lines teling me
> where the merged
> > lines
> > > > > where.
> > > > > Is there any way around this ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ex.
> > > > > The <<<<<<< and >>>>> delimit the merged lines.
> > > >
> > > > No, they delimit conflicts. You can't get around
> conflicts. You must
> > > > resolve them when they occur, and you can't prevent them from
> occuring,
> > > > unless people working independently magically stay out
> of each other's
> > > > way.
> > > >
> > > > RTFM!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Info-cvs mailing list
> > > > address@hidden
> > > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
> >
> > --
> > Stupidity is its own reward.
>
> --
> Building translators is good clean fun.
> -- T. Cheatham
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
>
- Re: Merging in CVS, (continued)
- RE: Merging in CVS, MacMunn, Robert, 2002/11/22
- RE: Merging in CVS, Daniels, Dave F [PCS], 2002/11/22
- RE: Merging in CVS,
MacMunn, Robert <=
- RE: Merging in CVS, Daniels, Dave F [PCS], 2002/11/22
- Re: Merging in CVS, Kaz Kylheku, 2002/11/26