tech-repository archive

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

Re: what's missing from CVS? extending CVS?

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 04:51:07PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> Sure. In loose order of importance:
>  - No rename operation.
>  - Slow. Branching and tagging are in particular extremely slow, to
>    the point of unacceptability.
>  - No disconnected operation.
>  - Cannot handle private branches.
>  - Has no native support for slave copies of the repository, and
>    making our own (as we do) exposes us to assorted bugs and hazards.
>  - Anonymous access is a major nuisance to administer.
>  - No tree-wide atomic commits.

I disagree about the order of importance. "tree-wide" atomic commits
would e.g. my number one.

There is however at least one thing I would like to add:

- merge tracking

The version control system of choice at work is Perforce. And it does
merge tracking really well. You can run "p4 filelog" (similar to "cvs log")
on a file and it will tell you what changes (in CVS terms: revisions)
were copied into what branch by what means (copy, skip, merge, etc.).
And can also tell you which changes came from which other branch.

        Kind regards

Matthias Scheler                        

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index