[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 09:10:34PM +0100, Matthias Scheler 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.
Hrm. It's never seemed to me to be that big a deal in practice. It's
certainly nice to never end up with an inconsistent checkout, but the
fact that one occasionally does doesn't hamper development like the
lack of rename does. (Note to mention the various problems with
branches and branch semantics.)
But I'm not committed to that order.
> There is however at least one thing I would like to add:
> - merge tracking
Yes, totally. Do you know if any of the free systems do a decent job
of it? darcs has some of the bits you need but I'm not sure it has all
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |