On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 22:27 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 06:59 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 21:46 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 21:07 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:33:17PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right but we're talking at cross-purposes. What I mean is, are
we using
> > > > these now with the fedora-extras and fedora-core dist-cvs? If so,
what
> > > > are the commands you're running to do that?
> > > >
> > > > Although we talk about branches with dist-cvs, there's no cvs
branches
> > > > in the repository that I'm aware of. So I'm wondering if
Karel has some
> > > > commands that he's using now or if this is a "If we use real
branches in
> > > > the next SCM, it'll give us the ability to do operation Xyz in a
better
> > > > way."
> > >
> > > Well, there's nothing to really prevent someone from using a branch
for
> > > private development. The buildsys won't build off of it, but you can
> > > commit stuff to a branch if you'd like. And of course, there's
also the
> > > tagging we _do_ use. Which is similar to a CVS branch. You can actually
> > > do the merge command using tag names too.
> > >
> > > I can see some use cases for using branching with git, simply because
> > > branches are trivial to create and work with.
> > >
> > Yeah -- branches in subversion and bazaar are trivial,
> How comes you consider branches in CVS to be more complex?
>
> I for one (Many year's of CVS power-usage), have never found subversion
> branches easy to use (I've never used bazaar nor git).
>
cvs doesn't separate the concept of tags and branches.
Right, this bloats the
repos sizes on the server (svn pushes this bloat
to the clients) and renders "branch removal" a pain on the server.
It also works on
individual files rather than whole trees.
Right, but I don't see this as a
disadvantage. It's a different working
principle.
It could just be a limitation
of my brain but those two things made branches a lot harder for me to
understand in cvs.
Well, on the client-side, branching is easy:
cvs tag -b branch-tag
cvs up -r branch-tag -dP
Unlike with svn, diffing between branches and getting to know about
branches (cvn log) is trivial.
What I find arguable/questionable in FE's CVS-repos, is the way
"FE-branches" have been implemented into it. They are implemented as
separate directories instead of CVS-branches. If real CVS-branches had
been used several details would have been much easier.
In the early days of FE, I had been told the reason for this design
decision had been AVCs, because CVS storing branches in files would
prevent AVCs to be applicable.
Ralf