The replacement he's referring to is Subversion. I don't think it's quite ready for prime time, but it looks like it will be very nice.
Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: MacMunn, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:54 PM > To: Daniels, Dave F [PCS] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Merging in CVS > > > It is looking that way to me also and you can't beat the > price. A friend of > mine was at the Apache conference this week and says there is > a replacement > coming out for CVS. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniels, Dave F [PCS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:43 PM > To: MacMunn, Robert > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Merging in CVS > > > From my experience, technically the way CVS performs merges > is fine. The > biggest problem has been misunderstanding of how to correctly > perform a > merge, and this is a problem you can have with any tool. I've > had instances > where someone complained that CVS screwed up a merge, but when I dug a > little deeper, it turned out the user had made the mistake, > not the tool. > > There are some holes in CVS (e.g., directory versioning), but > overall it's a > very easy tool to use and manage, even with a large number of users. > > Dave > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MacMunn, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:54 PM > > To: 'Thomas S. Urban' > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Merging in CVS > > > > > > We have 3 CM tools within the whole comapny. CVS, Perforce, > > and Clearcase. > > > > Management wants to go with 1 tool. They feel Clearcase is > > too expensive, > > and it can be. I am a Clearcase guy, but know the cost. So, > > Perforce seems > > limited, CVS seems to be able to handle all that we need. I > > just need to > > make sure that there aren't any gotcha's. > > > > From the feedback I am getting from other CVS users is that > > CVS handles > > merges poorly. I am not here to start an arguement on which > > is the better > > CM tool. I am not closed minded to think that because I know > > Clearcase, > > that it is the best tool. I am trying to find out where we may have > > problems with release engineering and developers. The > > graphical merge tool > > Clearacse has saves a lot of time, and it is part of > > Clearcase. The cost of > > Clearcase is just too astronomical now and like I said CVS > > seems to have > > all that we need. I am just trying to figure out what we > > gain and what we > > lose. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: 'Thomas S. Urban' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:39 PM > > To: MacMunn, Robert > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS > > > > > > So use Clearcase if it provides something you can't live > without. I'm > > only trying to point out that logically, the operations are the same > > (the timing may be a little different), e.g: > > > > 1 You request an update of local file to newest version in > > repository > > 2 CVS will merge new version and local changes (if any) > > automatically, > > (if possible) > > 3 If automatic merge is not possible, CVS forces user to > *manually* > > resolve conflicts > > > > If you can show my how clearcase behaves differently than this > > *logically*, then maybe you've got a point (and maybe I'll > start using > > clearcase since it would then have the ability to read my mind). > > > > Everthing else is just interfaces and easy of use, both of which are > > qualities easy to remedy through toolsmithing, IMO. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 13:28:02 -0500, MacMunn, Robert sent > > 3.0K bytes: > > > It isn't a slick interface. In Clearcase it is the merge > > tool itself that > > > gives you the ability to deal with the conflicts easily. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: 'Thomas S. Urban' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:27 PM > > > To: MacMunn, Robert > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 13:17:12 -0500, MacMunn, Robert > > sent 1.7K bytes: > > > > Not at all. In Clearcase you have a graphical > interface where the > > > conflicts > > > > can be taken care of as the merge happens. No manual > > editting of files. > > > > > > A nice tool with a graphical interface is still a manual > > tool. It may > > > be easier to use than a simple text editor (but why would > you use a > > > simple text editor?), but both process are manual versus > > automatic. > > > Perhaps the time the manual work happens is significant, I > > don't know, > > > but it still happens. > > > > > > Graphical interfaces for dealing with the conflict markers > > CVS produces > > > probably exist, either with one of the many GUI clients, or > > with emacs. > > > The vim plugin I use highlights them specially. If I > cared, I could > > > write easy vim functions that would take one version or the > > other for > > > each conflict. But it rarely comes up in our usage (i.e. > > including good > > > communication), so I don't care all that much about slick > > interfaces to > > > conflict resolution. > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Thomas S. Urban [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:16 PM > > > > To: MacMunn, Robert > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:23:56 -0500, MacMunn, Robert > > sent 0.9K bytes: > > > > > Thanks. Looks like merges must be difficult in CVS. A > > lot of manual > > > > work. > > > > > > > > Most of the time, merges happen automatically. Manual > > intervention is > > > > only required when they can't happen automatically. > > Conflicts always > > > > take (some amount) of a manual work. Merges never do. I > > don't see how > > > > you can get around this fact in any system, short of > exclusivity. > > > > > > > > Looks like you may be confused by terminology. RTFM. > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Kaz Kylheku [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:18 PM > > > > > To: MacMunn, Robert > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: Merging in CVS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, MacMunn, Robert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I am new to CVS. I am testing out merging. > > > > > > > > > > > > When I merged 2 files I got extra lines teling me > > where the merged > > > lines > > > > > > where. > > > > > > Is there any way around this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ex. > > > > > > The <<<<<<< and >>>>> delimit the merged lines. > > > > > > > > > > No, they delimit conflicts. You can't get around > > conflicts. You must > > > > > resolve them when they occur, and you can't prevent them from > > occuring, > > > > > unless people working independently magically stay out > > of each other's > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > RTFM! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Info-cvs mailing list > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs > > > > > > -- > > > Stupidity is its own reward. > > > > -- > > Building translators is good clean fun. > > -- T. Cheatham > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Info-cvs mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs > > > _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs