[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Re: Problems using CVS transparently

From: Joi Ellis
Subject: Re: Re: Problems using CVS transparently
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 05:58:04 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> > Finally, let me add a "me too":  trying to build shadow sandboxes
> > using links seems very fragile and error-prone.  Give up on CVS
> > before going there.
> Unless you have a piece of software which automatically does it right.
> Then it can be robust.
> Meta-CVS uses hard links to efficiently create a sandbox.
> The links can break, so it repairs them in all the situations
> when it is necessary.
> For instance, when CVS updates a working file, it removes the old and
> creates a new one. This isn't a problem; Meta-CVS notices this and
> repairs the link.
> If the user somehow breaks the link on the other end, this isn't a
> problem either. Meta-CVS update will repair the link prior to invoking
> CVS update so that changes from the repository are properly
> incorporated into the user's modified version.  And then it will repair
> the link again after the update, to synchronize in the other direction.

How would this perform under and IDE like JBuilder?  JBuilder can be
user-configured to keep 0 to 90 numbered backup copies of a file being
editted.  When it saves a fresh copy, it renames the old one (numbered
incrementally upwards) and writes a new one.  JBuilder also has CVS
integration, and users who have used symlinks or hard links in the past
have complained about JBuilder's file handling in the past.

Is META-CVS a drop-in replacement for cvs?  Is its output radically different
from regular CVS?

Joi Ellis                    Software Engineer
Aravox Technologies          address@hidden, address@hidden

No matter what we think of Linux versus FreeBSD, etc., the one thing I
really like about Linux is that it has Microsoft worried.  Anything
that kicks a monopoly in the pants has got to be good for something.
           - Chris Johnson

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]