2004 3:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CVS Pros/Cons
--- "Donald Sharp (sharpd)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Check-outs and commits are not atomic. The
> repository
> >will not become corrupt, but if you are checking
On 2004-02-13, Kevin Layer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It actually wouldn't be difficult, but it would be a lot of tedious work
> >> for very little benefit -- lack of atomicity usually isn't a problem and
> >> when it is, it is almost always easily fix
--- "Donald Sharp (sharpd)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Check-outs and commits are not atomic. The
> repository
> >will not become corrupt, but if you are checking in
> a
> >number of files and one file fails, the system does
> >not roll back the other files in the repository to
> >thei
Larry Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kevin Layer writes:
>> >
>> > "Wouldn't be that hard" is an overstatement. To close the harzard
>> > completely would be hard, otherwise it would have been done already.
>>
>> It actually wouldn't be difficult, but it would be a lot of tedious work
>> f
[ On Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 12:57:11 (+), Brian Murphy wrote: ]
> Subject: CVS Pros/Cons
>
> Weaknesses of CVS:
>
> There is no integrity-checking for the source-code
> repository. Amazingly, there are no checksums or
> signatures to allow the integrity of the sou
=?iso-8859-1?q?Brian=20Murphy?= writes:
>
> There is no integrity-checking for the source-code
> repository.
What point would it serve? If you don't trust the code, why would you
trust the integrity checking part of it? If your disk can't be trusted
to record data correctly, you've got more ser
Donald Sharp \(sharpd\) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Check-outs and commits are not atomic. The repository
>> >will not become corrupt, but if you are checking in a
>> >number of files and one file fails, the system does
>> >not roll back the other files in the repository to
>> >their state befo
Kevin Layer writes:
>
> "Wouldn't be that hard" is an overstatement. To close the harzard
> completely would be hard, otherwise it would have been done already.
It actually wouldn't be difficult, but it would be a lot of tedious work
for very little benefit -- lack of atomicity usually isn't a p
Aside:
Have you seen Subversion? It specifically addresses a good number of your concerns.
But it is a newer product, and I certainly don't know enough about it to recommend (or
damn) it.
For my own part I *like* the fact that CVS stores revisions at the file level. It's
part of our release
>Weaknesses of CVS:
>
>There is no integrity-checking for the source-code
>repository. Amazingly, there are no checksums or
>signatures to allow the integrity of the source-code
>repository to be verified. This means that the
>repository can become corrupt and it can be months
>before you realiz
There is a well documented account of the strengths
and weaknesses of CVS.
Will there be any plans for CVS to overcome the listed
shortcomings?
How is future planning decided upon and is there a
timetable for future release?
Thansk for your feedback.
CVS advocacy and warts
Curtesy of Jonathan
11 matches
Mail list logo
