[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CVS server/db doesn't keep track of where you checkout the files?

From: Bob Proulx
Subject: Re: CVS server/db doesn't keep track of where you checkout the files?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:52:01 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Arthur Barrett wrote:
> > > Just to give some info, I have worked with ClearCase a lot.

I, as I am sure others did too, took a deep breath upon reading that

> > > So far, one thing I find very comfortable or uncomfortable 
> > > is: CVS server or database seems doesn't care where you 
> > > store the checkout files. 
> > 
> > The client working copy tracks the server.  But the
> > server does not track working copies.  This is typical of 
> > most version control systems in popular use.
> And all men are liars and all women fixated on shoes.  
> Of course software and people are not accurately generalised.

Of course!  All generalities are false, including this one. :-)

In the spirit of comedy I will stand by my statement that "most" do
not track client checkouts.  I am sure that some do.  But I am
thinking that RCS, CVS, Subversion, Git, Mercurial, Bazaar, Monotone,
are arguably some of the most popular software and none of those track
client checkouts where it matters if the client moves the working copy
about on the filesystem.  SVK stands out as different because it
tracks this on the client and the working copy can't be moved about
without breaking things.  Or at least it did when I last used it some
time ago.  Perhaps that has been improved more recently.

> Many version control systems (including CVS) that I have used do track
> where working copies are.  Most do it very poorly.  

We are talking about the history file here, right?  (me makes a pained
face) I don't think that is what the poster was asking about!

> To see if the CVS server is tracking working copies - use the 'cvs
> editors' command.

Oh, sure, the 'cvs editors' command.  I don't think that is typical or
popular though.  I always considered that, perhaps wrongly, rather
special purpose.


reply via email to

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