-----Original Message----- From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:45 AM To: Paul Sander Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fouts Christopher (6452); MKlinke Subject: RE: Versioning between checkout|update, commit
Thank you for the responses... On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Paul Sander wrote: > Some shops also implement a handoff mechanism that divorces the notion > of "latest committed" from "candidate for integration". That allows > the developers to commit with impunity without fear that the world > would see something inappropriately. Yes, some places seem to do this with different branches... > > --- Forwarded mail from sharpd(.--.-.)cisco.com > > Create your own private branch to do work on. When you want to save > work, commit the code. When you are done, merge the changes down. The book "Open Source Development with CVS" says that you should keep few branches active at any one time. I'm wondering if there are penalties (apart from storage costs) when many contributors create their own branches? ---> Yes there are significant penalties with cvs in creating too many branches. ---> I wouldn't worry about this if you are in a small shop( under 25 developers ) ---> though. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed ad infinitum here though, ---> do a quick search to find this information :) Also, doesn't having a separate branch for your own development make doing an update in between edits more difficult? ---> Creating your own branch, definately increases the process that you work with. ---> It's easy though, just more process. > > Other possibilities include implementing a backup system that takes > hourly snapshots.... Yes, but it would be less flexible than SCCS, I think... ---> Just trying to give suggestions ;) ---> odnald > > --- End of forwarded message from sharpd(.--.-.)cisco.com > > MKlinke <mklinke(.--.-.)axsi.com> wrote > I've been known to keep my own private CVS repository going where I > can keep track of my own changes until it's ready to be put into the > "official" repository. How does the knowledge about the two repositories interoperate? I mean, after you have committed to yours a few times, any commit will go to that rather than the original repository, won't it? If one has only read-only access to the main repository, that is OK, because one will send in patches, but this will still change $Revision$ fields, asynchronously with the server. -ko etc would work around that. Maybe this reduction in information is acceptable given the cvs status command, but I don't have enough experience to judge that. > > Regards, Mike Klinke Thank you, Hugh _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs