Re: Merging in CVS

[Paul Sander]

There is an aspect of ClearCase that makes its merge operations significantly
superior to CVS, which is in the way it identifies the common ancestor of
of a 3-way merge.  It considers the results of past merges, not just the
intersection of the branches.  The effect is that resolved conflicts
don't reappear in subsequent merges.

One other less-often used feature is that ClearCase merges can take up to
32 contributors, so that it's possible to merge more than two branches in
one sitting.

--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

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.

--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden