On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 10:26:44PM -0500, Ross Day wrote: > Well...I can't say absolutely for sure about CVS, but I know you can do > that exact situation with SVN with absolutely no problems. It works > like a charm. For that matter, I don't see why you couldn't do the > exact same thing with CVS...CVS wouldn't handle the merging very well as > you did the random 'cvs update' to grab new changes from the repo, but > it'd probably handle it better than you do manually. Regardless, I know > SVN would handle this situation beautifully.
The problem with CVS (and I thought SVN as well) is that it all starts off with a 'cvs checkout' from the main author's archive. Even if I start a new branch, I can't 'cvs commit' any of my work because I'm not really a project member; I have read-only access. With Git, Darcs, and numerous others, I get a full local repository when I do the original checkout. I can do commits against my local repository (possibly in a different branch) and be able to track the mainline at the same time. But I never have to commit back to the main (read-only) project repository; my commits are all local. -- Don Bindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject: unsubscribe -----------------------------------------------------------------
