Gregory Stark wrote:
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I note also that CVS does have the ability to merge changes across
branches, we just choose not to use it that way.
And the reason why, I assume, is because it's hard to grant access to CVS
without granting access to do anything at all to the whole repository. And CVS
is fragile enough that that's pretty scary. There are lots of ways someone
could mess up a CVS repository.
Every project I have been on that has used cross branch merge with CVS
has tied itself in knots. Branch and never merge is by far the sanest
way to operate. This is true regardless of any privs issue.
The elephant in the room is that merging is *the* hard problem in SCM
systems. Last time I wrestled with merge it was using ClearCase and
drove me nuts.
The distributed systems sound neat and do sound like they match our style of
working. But they seem like a big leap for a project that's still using a
buggy unmaintained pile of spaghetti code for fear of change. Subversion is
the path of least resistance in that nothing has to change, we can choose to
use new features if we want but otherwise it's basically a CVS 2.0 with a new
name (and active maintenance).
There is some truth in that. Also, many of the new systems have a little
way to go on maturity - I'd like to see the dust settle some in this area.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly