[RFC] ALFS version control system
bookreader at gmx.com
Thu Apr 15 10:31:29 PDT 2004
On Thursday 15 April 2004 15:09, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Reinhard wrote:
> > With cvs you could use 3 different (local) users and checkout the
> > repository in their home-directory. Or check it out once and copy it to
> > the others. The benefit of cvs is, that you work without locks, so you
> > can clone your local copy as often you like (you have to copy the
> > CVS-subdirs as well). You only have to care about "dist[clean]" before
> > testing and you can commit the changes from each copy as well.
> Yes, I have considered this, but it is cumbersome, especially when the
> local user is using ssh to get CVS commit access to the master
> repository (like we do for LFS). Then you have a situation where three
> different local user IDs have to map to the same remote user ID, which
> could be difficult to arrange. Certainly not ideal anyway.
Well, normally you only have one writeable account in cvs-host.
I do such things by adding all local users (that work together with the same
repository) to the same group and then I do an 'su' right before the commit.
For the cvs-repository you (as person) have one account, no matter how many
'virtual' local users you use to perform the editing. Respect to the
repository, all local users are the same. With executing su before the
commit, they stay the same for the repository.
> > That sounds very great. I don't know BitKeeper at all, but I think, this
> > would only be true, if you did not change the same file in both clones.
> > Automated merging is a high sophisticated issue and I'm convinced, that
> > it can't work for big changes without an editors-changing-history and so
> > forcing you to use an IDE or somewhat similar (like eclipse).
> No, it handles three-way merging very well, so changes to the same file
> work fine. In fact, even CVS can do this to some extent; the real
> difference with BitKeeper is that the _source_ of the changes being
> merged into the local tree can be (nearly) any other tree that was
> cloned from the master (or even cloned from one of those), not just the
> master tree.
> > - Does BitKeeper use additional information outside of the sources?
> Yes, it uses SCCS directories to track what happens to the files.
So the cloning can't be done without BitTracker.
Some time ago I worked with a windoz-tool, that kept the absolut path of the
sources in an repository - so you got struck with simple
May be BitTracker is smarter on local cloning and merging, but the benefit of
cvs is, that it works with the sources only (Well, some files in the
CVS-subdirs, but they don't get involved in the merge-process.
More information about the alfs-discuss