RE: Merging in CVS

[Daniels, Dave F [PCS]]

The replacement he's referring to is Subversion. I don't think it's quite
ready for prime time, but it looks like it will be very nice.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MacMunn, Robert [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:54 PM
> To: Daniels, Dave F [PCS]
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: Merging in CVS
> 
> 
> It is looking that way to me also and you can't beat the 
> price.  A friend of
> mine was at the Apache conference this week and says there is 
> a replacement
> coming out for CVS.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniels, Dave F [PCS] [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:43 PM
> To: MacMunn, Robert
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: Merging in CVS
> 
> 
> From my experience, technically the way CVS performs merges 
> is fine. The
> biggest problem has been misunderstanding of how to correctly 
> perform a
> merge, and this is a problem you can have with any tool. I've 
> had instances
> where someone complained that CVS screwed up a merge, but when I dug a
> little deeper, it turned out the user had made the mistake, 
> not the tool.
> 
> There are some holes in CVS (e.g., directory versioning), but 
> overall it's a
> very easy tool to use and manage, even with a large number of users.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MacMunn, Robert [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:54 PM
> > To: 'Thomas S. Urban'
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: RE: Merging in CVS
> > 
> > 
> > We have 3 CM tools within the whole comapny.  CVS, Perforce, 
> > and Clearcase.
> > 
> > Management wants to go with 1 tool.  They feel Clearcase is 
> > too expensive,
> > and it can be.  I am a Clearcase guy, but know the cost.  So, 
> > Perforce seems
> > limited, CVS seems to be able to handle all that we need.  I 
> > just need to
> > make sure that there aren't any gotcha's.  
> > 
> > From the feedback I am getting from other CVS users is that 
> > CVS handles
> > merges poorly.  I am not here to start an arguement on which 
> > is the better
> > CM tool.  I am not closed minded to think that because I know 
> > Clearcase,
> > that it is the best tool.  I am trying to find out where we may have
> > problems with release engineering and developers.  The 
> > graphical merge tool
> > Clearacse has saves a lot of time, and it is part of 
> > Clearcase.  The cost of
> > Clearcase is just too astronomical now  and like I said CVS 
> > seems to have
> > all that we need.  I am just trying to figure out what we 
> > gain and what we
> > lose.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 'Thomas S. Urban' [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:39 PM
> > To: MacMunn, Robert
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
> > 
> > 
> > So use Clearcase if it provides something you can't live 
> without.  I'm
> > only trying to point out that logically, the operations are the same
> > (the timing may be a little different), e.g:
> > 
> >   1 You request an update of local file to newest version in 
> > repository
> >   2 CVS will merge new version and local changes (if any) 
> > automatically,
> >     (if possible)
> >   3 If automatic merge is not possible, CVS forces user to 
> *manually*
> >     resolve conflicts
> > 
> > If you can show my how clearcase behaves differently than this
> > *logically*, then maybe you've got a point (and maybe I'll 
> start using
> > clearcase since it would then have the ability to read my mind).
> > 
> > Everthing else is just interfaces and easy of use, both of which are
> > qualities easy to remedy through toolsmithing, IMO.
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 13:28:02 -0500, MacMunn, Robert sent 
> > 3.0K bytes:
> > > It isn't a slick interface. In Clearcase it is the merge 
> > tool itself that
> > > gives you the ability to deal with the conflicts easily.
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: 'Thomas S. Urban' [mailto:address@hidden
> > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:27 PM
> > > To: MacMunn, Robert
> > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 13:17:12 -0500, MacMunn, Robert 
> > sent 1.7K bytes:
> > > > Not at all.  In Clearcase you have a graphical 
> interface where the
> > > conflicts
> > > > can be taken care of as the merge happens.  No manual 
> > editting of files.
> > > 
> > > A nice tool with a graphical interface is still a manual 
> > tool.  It may
> > > be easier to use than a simple text editor (but why would 
> you use a
> > > simple text editor?), but both process are manual versus 
> > automatic.  
> > > Perhaps the time the manual work happens is significant, I 
> > don't know,
> > > but it still happens.
> > > 
> > > Graphical interfaces for dealing with the conflict markers 
> > CVS produces
> > > probably exist, either with one of the many GUI clients, or 
> > with emacs.
> > > The vim plugin I use highlights them specially.  If I 
> cared, I could
> > > write easy vim functions that would take one version or the 
> > other for
> > > each conflict.  But it rarely comes up in our usage (i.e. 
> > including good
> > > communication), so I don't care all that much about slick 
> > interfaces to
> > > conflict resolution.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Thomas S. Urban [mailto:address@hidden
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:16 PM
> > > > To: MacMunn, Robert
> > > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:23:56 -0500, MacMunn, Robert 
> > sent 0.9K bytes:
> > > > > Thanks.  Looks like merges must be difficult in CVS.  A 
> > lot of manual
> > > > work.
> > > > 
> > > > Most of the time, merges happen automatically.  Manual 
> > intervention is
> > > > only required when they can't happen automatically. 
> > Conflicts always
> > > > take (some amount) of a manual work. Merges never do.  I 
> > don't see how
> > > > you can get around this fact in any system, short of 
> exclusivity.
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like you may be confused by terminology. RTFM.
> > > > 
> > > > HTH
> > > > Scott
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Kaz Kylheku [mailto:address@hidden
> > > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:18 PM
> > > > > To: MacMunn, Robert
> > > > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, MacMunn, Robert wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I am new to CVS.  I am testing out merging.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > When I merged 2 files I got extra lines teling me 
> > where the merged
> > > lines
> > > > > > where.
> > > > > > Is there any way around this ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ex.
> > > > > > The <<<<<<< and >>>>>  delimit the merged lines.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, they delimit conflicts. You can't get around 
> > conflicts. You must
> > > > > resolve them when they occur, and you can't prevent them from
> > occuring,
> > > > > unless people working independently magically stay out 
> > of each other's
> > > > > way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > RTFM!
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Info-cvs mailing list
> > > > > address@hidden
> > > > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Stupidity is its own reward.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Building translators is good clean fun.
> >             -- T. Cheatham
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Info-cvs mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
> > 
>