Stewart Stremler wrote:
I think everyone does a little bit. But some groups do it more than
others; one of these days I should look at the CVS code "in anger",
just to see how hard it would be to add some features...
(Versioning directories? Shouldn't be hard. Same for renames. Same
for offline/laptop use. I don't care about atomic commits, as 99% of
the time I commit one or two files, so that's not an itch for me,
but a global commit count might be interesting, especially if it can
be used an a $CommitNumber$ tag...)
My advice. Don't.
A) Subversion does 90%+ of what you want
B) Snapshots are not quite the right abstraction
Snapshots are a deceptively simple 85% solution. And then you hit the
last 15% and realize that you can't get to the rest.
Take a *long* look at the svn, mercurial, arch, and darcs development
mailing lists before you consider this. Especially arch(tla?), Tom
Lord(arch/tla) is far too histrionic, but his points have merit, and
there are generally links to the other lists where they discuss patch
theory. The git, darcs, arch, and mercurial folks are all dancing
around some hard problems and trying to get them right. It's not easy.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
