Re: CVS versus MKS (or should I avoid moving to MKS?)
You can use CygWin (http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/), instead. IMHO, CygWin provides better Unix-on-NT support than MKS does. Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.09.12 18:15:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Noel L Yap) Subject: CVS versus MKS (or should I avoid moving to MKS?) Hello I currently use CVS for our projects - we have 9 modules, about 9300 files, close to 80Mbytes in total (mostly .jsp and .java files). We don't do much in-house development, but quite a bit of bug fixing and minor improvements. Most of the new development is done offsite for us - the code gets shipped to me and I merge the branch, etc. The CM experts in the company that does the offsite development for us are starting to recommend (and push) MKS as a "solution" which according to them would allow for better concurrent development and all kinds of extra good things. The offsite developers now use Visual Source Safe and would give it up in favour of MKS. I know CVS allows for remote access and would be happy to keep using it. However, I will need to provide some reasons to my boss as to why we should ignore the good advice of the CM specialists. In fact, should I stick to CVS? I like CVS, but if MKS is truly a better tool, and the size and scope of our projects warrant it, perhaps we should adopt it? Should we keep CVS while they use MKS? Anyways, to end this long note, I would appreciate any comments you all may have about my situation. Thanks in advance Antonio This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Co. Incorporated, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Re: CVS versus MKS (or should I avoid moving to MKS?)
Antonio, MKS is a decent tool for file-based version control. It does offer some features beyond what CVS including: 1) Security policy using their Security and Administration Module (SAM) on a per-project and/or per-user basis 2) *Automatic* file type detection (ASCII vs Binary) 3) Option to store binary file revisions as complete files (not deltas) 4) Good GUI 5) Possible integration with their MKS Track Integrity problem tracking tool (haven't tried it out) 6) Good technical support I've not used their internet add-on, but I think you would probably need to use that if you have remote developers. The standard MKS Source Integrity product does not (to my knowledge) have a remote protocol - you must "map" a drive, which as we all know, can be problemmatic over remote links. To CVS's credit, you'd probably be giving up: 1) Project-level merge capability (particularly automatic add/remove of files) 2) A consistent command line interface for both local and client/server modes On a design point, MKS stores project metadata in versioned project files which essentially contain the project's Bill Of Materials plus revision numbers. This is used as the foundation for determining if files are out-of-date, and is the basis for determining branch points for "variant sandboxes".However, it is important to check-in and version these project files periodically to guarantee you have the ability to create a branch point. I think CVS is more flexible on this point - CVS is able to provide the same functionality using only tags in the archives (and whether an archive is in or out of the Attic). I've used both, and I like both. However, if it were me, I'd stick with CVS, mainly due to its proven track record in my experience of providing reliable, efficient transfers and consistent functionality for remote developers, since that is a critical capability you need. David
Re: CVS versus MKS (or should I avoid moving to MKS?)
The biggest thing CVS has going for it over MKS SI is the (mostly) automatic merging of branches on a project- or module-wide basis using 3-way diffs. MKS merging is file-by-file, and is 2-way diff based manual process, (or was, last time I checked, which was a year ago or so). A couple other points in CVS favor: CVS is pretty portable, which can be important if you're doing development on some obscure or very new platform or OS. For example, I was able to run CVS on pre-beta versions of SCO Unixware 7 before SCO had even picked unixware 7 as the name. And now I am able to run it on IBM's AIX5L on Itanium. Also, MKS SI uses a locking scheme, like RCS, which, if you've gotten used to CVS, this can be an annoyance to have to constantly be locking things. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/
CVS versus MKS (or should I avoid moving to MKS?)
Hello I currently use CVS for our projects - we have 9 modules, about 9300 files, close to 80Mbytes in total (mostly .jsp and .java files). We don't do much in-house development, but quite a bit of bug fixing and minor improvements. Most of the new development is done offsite for us - the code gets shipped to me and I merge the branch, etc. The CM experts in the company that does the offsite development for us are starting to recommend (and push) MKS as a "solution" which according to them would allow for better concurrent development and all kinds of extra good things. The offsite developers now use Visual Source Safe and would give it up in favour of MKS. I know CVS allows for remote access and would be happy to keep using it. However, I will need to provide some reasons to my boss as to why we should ignore the good advice of the CM specialists. In fact, should I stick to CVS? I like CVS, but if MKS is truly a better tool, and the size and scope of our projects warrant it, perhaps we should adopt it? Should we keep CVS while they use MKS? Anyways, to end this long note, I would appreciate any comments you all may have about my situation. Thanks in advance Antonio
