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 Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 06:03:29AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> 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.)

It turns out that one implies the other - it's much easier to talk
about branch points when there's a single atomic revision to describe
the entirety of the tree at the branch point.

>  > - 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
> of them.

monotone has the only formally-proven (tree) merger, it uses standard
three-way-merge on file content lines (with external tool assistance
as required/configured); it turns out that once you've correctly
identified the correct least common ancestor for each merge (which
is what the fancy algorithms do) this works really well.

codeville has a similar-but-different approach that evolved
side-by-side with much lively discussion, we call it provably
incorrect, but it apparently works well in practice and has certainly
had a lot of good work by smart people.

if you really want a system that supports highly detailed cherrypicking,
you probably want either darcs or tla.  if.

Lots of the theoretical stuff is on, including the
detailed discussion of merge algorithms.


Attachment: pgpD0BkOPUsK7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index