Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:32:37 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone |
| |
Hi!
> > Can you elaborate? I thought that this > > "real DAG" structure is more or less > > equivalent to each developer having > > his owm CVS repository... > > Nope. CVS uses RCS, and RCS only knows about trees, not graphs. > Specifically, branch merges are not tagged as such, and as a result > CVS is unable to pick up the best grandparent when doing a merge. > That's the main reason of why branching under CVS is so painful > (forgetting about the performance issues).
I see. But I still somehow can not understand how merging is possible. Merge possibly means work-by-hand, right? So it is not as simple as noting that 1.8 and 1.7.1.1 were merged into 1.9, no? [And what if developer did really crap job at merging that, like dropping all changes from 1.7.1.1?]
> > If I fixed CVS renames, added atomic > > commits, splits and merges, and gave each > > developer his own CVS repository, > > would I be in same league as bk? > > Ie 10 times slower but equivalent > > functionality? > > Nope. You'll find out that this per-developper repository quickly > needs to become a per-branch repository, and even need you need to > write somewhere when the merges with other repositories happen, and > you end up with the DAG again.
Yep, that's what I wanted to know. [I see per-branch repository is pain, but it helps me to understand that.]
Thanx for your explanations, Pavel -- Horseback riding is like software... ...vgf orggre jura vgf serr. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |