Re: CVS bashing?

[Eric Siegerman]

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
> options:
> 
> Keep your changes only, keep the other set of changes only, or merge the
> changes.

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.
Pros:
  - 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.
Cons:
  - 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)