As I know, ClearCase is a good CM tool too. And it can support command-line merge and GUI merge. It can support manual merge and auto merge.
But it's a commercial product. > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:21:17 -0600 > From: Preston Landers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Need info about merging / conflicts > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Does anyone know a good resource for information about how CVS (or any > version control system for that matter) handles merging and > identifying merge conficts? > > At my organization we are looking at adopting a new version control > system (well, ideally an overall CM / defect tracking / workflow > system). Most of the developers here are used to working only with a > system (CMVC) that requires exclusive locks on file checkouts, and > requires manually merging in all changes from side branches. > > I've brought up the benefits of working CVS style but I've run into > considerable resistance, or lack of understanding of the benefits. > I've been told that it's "stupid" to think that software can possibly > safely merge code changes and safely identify conflicts, that it is > "brittle", language dependent, somehow causes problems with > compliation, etc, etc. I'm poorly equipped to counter these arguments > at the moment because I have so little understanding of the topic > myself. I just know from experience at a previous CVS-using > organization that in CVS it is infinitely easier to deal with > concurrent access and merging changes. > > BTW, when I asked one vendor why his product didn't support > auto-merging, he suggested open source projects like CVS only use > auto-merging because they're too poor to afford a nice, shiny > Diff-Editor like this product had. I was flabbergasted but didn't > know what to say. I'm pretty sure there are commercial products > (Bitkeeper, Perforce?) which auto-merge because it makes sense and is > easier... am I right? > > thanks, > > Preston Landers > > > >
